Sequels Bryan Singer would love to return to X-Men universe

[The Overlord]

Theres more to making it closer to the comics than just adding Space (which I would not be opposed to if it were explored in a reboot) you could start by not drastically changing roles and personalities of just about every character.
You could also establish that this is a fantasy world and cut this realism crap out cause it hardly works when youre dealing with the X-Men. They have realistic issues but they are very much a fantasy world.

Who was drastically changed? Xavier, Magneto and Wolvie seemed fine to me.

The space stuff wouldn't work on the Silver screen, having a Phoenix Saga that involves space would have take too long and been too expensive. Plus the Brood are just rip offs of the creatures from Aliens, who wants to see those rip offs on the screen?


And the realist stuff is also done out of necessity, because what a comic book geek will accept and what the general audience will accept are two different things.

Considering the comics books often contradict themselves, being true to the spirit of the comic is more important than trying to do a panel by panel recreation of the comics on film.

 

[Watson]

X3 may not have been embraced by fans or critics, but the general public clearly liked it, or it wouldn't have made nearly as much money as it did despite mediocre reviews and a troubled history. Do you think the existence of WOLVERINE is an accident? That said, there's really no concrete reason WOLVERINE should affect the actual box office of another X-Men movie. The target audience isn't "critics and fans". It's the average person who gives two ****s about story, character development, and fidelity to source material.

X3 didn't really make that much money. It grossed about the same domestically as X2, but had a much larger budget which suggests to me that they were expecting a larger BO then what it did. Both films made less than Iron Man even, which I found surprising since IM is a way lesser known character.

And as for Wolverine, you're right there clearly was more money to be made. But they didn't make as much, and they have another bad film on their hands. I do think that makes the public a little more hesitant about spending money on a series that isn't delivering. Movies cost $12 some places, do you really want to spend it on a crap movie?

I only say all this because I wouldn't want the X films to head down the road that the Batman ones did. The movies got real bad and full of nipples, and next thing you know there's no Batman for 8 years on screen. I like X-Men and I'm hopeful for another good film.

 

[CB Fan]

Who was drastically changed? Xavier, Magneto and Wolvie seemed fine to me.

The space stuff wouldn't work on the Silver screen, having a Phoenix Saga that involves space would have take too long and been too expensive. Plus the Brood are just rip offs of the creatures from Aliens, who wants to see those rip offs on the screen?


And the realist stuff is also done out of necessity, because what a comic book geek will accept and what the general audience will accept are two different things.

Considering the comics books often contradict themselves, being true to the spirit of the comic is more important than trying to do a panel by panel recreation of the comics on film.

Rogue, Cyke, Bobby, Mystique, Storm, Sabertooth, Psylocke, DeadPool and more I'm sure were all changed rather it be personality or role in the team wise.
Audiences that can accept movies like POTC, Harry Potter, Star Trek, and Transformers (And pretty soon probably Avatar) will be able to handle the X-Men. Im not saying it must be panel for panel I only asked and am asking for a reboot closer to the source, as my personal preference.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Who was drastically changed? Xavier, Magneto and Wolvie seemed fine to me.

There are more then three characters in the films.

And Wolverine becoming leader of the team in X3 counts as "changing roles and personalities." Wolverine was always more of a leading man in the movies and they avoided doing anything to make him too unlikable or true to his comic self. The only time Wolverine was close to the comics Wolverine was the scene in the bar in X1. He became too warm to the idea of being on a team too quickly.

 

[X-Maniac]

There are more then three characters in the films.

And Wolverine becoming leader of the team in X3 counts as "changing roles and personalities." Wolverine was always more of a leading man in the movies and they avoided doing anything to make him too unlikable or true to his comic self. The only time Wolverine was close to the comics Wolverine was the scene in the bar in X1. He became too warm to the idea of being on a team too quickly.

I sort of agree with this. Wolverine would have been better kept as more of an angry loner, it's a more interesting dynamic that provides conflict with the others.

 

[Nathan]

Wolverine works in small dosages, as the loner of the group, who has an authority problem and is just good at kicking ass.

I really hate how they put so much focus on him and made him the leader in the end. But even with all the love and attention Singer has given him in his Movies, at least he didn't try to turn him into the leader of the group.

 

[Ipodman]

To me, almost all the characters were 'changed' in one way or another.... with the exception of maybe Xavier and Magneto...

Only change i dont get is Rogue (Rouge?)

 

[zeptron]

The role they gave Rogue should have gone to Jubilee instead.

 

[Ipodman]

Or shadowcat at least...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Wolverine works in small dosages, as the loner of the group, who has an authority problem and is just good at kicking ass.

I really hate how they put so much focus on him and made him the leader in the end. But even with all the love and attention Singer has given him in his Movies, at least he didn't try to turn him into the leader of the group.

Exactly, he was practically the only on who got development on X3, but it was development NO ONE wanted to see.

 

[The Chris]

See I didn't mind the Rogue change in X1, and then in X2 I felt that she was progressing into an X-Man and wanted to see what they did with her next (and was hoping she'd get those superman like powers at some point) It's X3 where she became truly worthless and misused and then Ratner went to the route of blasphemy (Because he decided she should get cured, and the producers and writers said she shouldn't)

 

[X-Maniac]

Good word of mouth from the first film combined with a massive promotion. I'd be interested to see how well Transformers 3 does comparatively.

Yes, it will be interesting, but the huge fanbase may make Transformers bulletproof, given some of the withering reviews of the second one didn't seem to dissuade people.

Besides I think it arguable that Transformers has a much wider fanbase than X-Men. Since it appeals to a bigger audience they were able to transform that into a bigger BO. So comparing X-men to Transformers may not be the best comparison.

Possibly not the best comparison, but it's a comparison you made yourself, so i was just following along.

Transformers obviously has a massive fanbase. All people want and expect is giant robots and explosions.

And the view of the critics IS important to the general public, like it or not. Do you really think a film getting trashed by critics isn't going to effect it's eventual numbers? Something like Transformers may not be the best example since it was a juggernaut and had some other stuff going for it. But if folks read a bad review, they may decide not to go. The X-Men franchise has already produced two badly received films. Do you think another stinker will help? It could end up being a franchise killer.

Critics have some influence, mostly if people are sheep and can't decide for themselves. But I think the power of critics is less than it was, because the market is so divided/specialised and because information on a film is available elsewhere (online trailers etc).

I guess it depends what you expect from an X-Men movie.

Part of the appeal of comic book characters is that people a) identify with them in some way b) live vicariously through the characters' superpowers. In comics, these guys have the power to fight back against evil, prejudice, thugs etc. So we need to see them kick ass in dynamic action scenes so we can imagine that we could do that. This is where X3's more action-packed spectacle works.

More generic film fans may not be bothered about action scenes, they may be happy with moody soap opera. But characters with powers have to be shown using their powers dramatically, or why do a superhero movie at all?

I should have been clearer. My point (and what I'm getting at above) is that one of the reasons Wolverine experienced the drop in BO was because of the already bad word of mouth and reviews that surrounded X3. I really think that because Wolverine also suffered from the same problem, it could effect BO of another X film. Which is why a fresh approach might be something good that would encourage audiences to go. It's basically the reverse effect of what happened with Batman Begins and TDK, or what is bound to happen with IM 2.

I don't know if X3 hit Wolverine that hard, it may have had some effect on making people a little wary, but this was an acclaimed director, a highly regarded writer, the circumstances were very different.

Yet again you jump to another series of assumptions about my posts. Did you find anywhere that I had written "SINGER IZ DA BEST OMG!!!"? No. I simply stated that I thought Singer coming back was a good thing because to date he has made what I feel is the best of the X films, X2. You make some really valid points how disappointing it was that certain elements of comics canon were taken out (especially how redundant and worthless they made Cyclops, that was disappointing). But, IN MY OPINION, I think X2 was good from a filmmaking perspective and holds up against some of the better superhero films we've gotten in the last decade. Now I'm sorry if that's too "Singer fangirl" for you. If it helps, I hated his Superman film.

Right, okay. Those are fair points. Except I think X2 is an oddity in that it didn't get brilliant reviews all round at the time of release (the BBC panned it, for instance), and it also had some fan negativity on here. I think some elements of it are quite flat, for instance the climax with Jean's sacrifice feels far less powerfully presented than the more operatic climax of X3. I think X2 has come to be seen more favourably over time, much like Spider-Man 2 (which is quite hammy in places, with Molina yelling 'And now nothing shall stop me..mwahahahaha" like something out of pantomime).

Those films get a bit too much love, and X3 gets far too much hate.

I would be open to a number of interpretations of X-men. A more epic piece with a new director would be groovy too. Also, I'm not American

Something along the lines of Iron Man would be cool - relatable, contemporay themes, humour as well as seriousness, great action and also flying scenes. We had to wait three movies for any flying in the X-Men - how wonderful to see Angel soaring and Storm finally get airborne in X3.

 

[Nathan]

See I didn't mind the Rogue change in X1, and then in X2 I felt that she was progressing into an X-Man and wanted to see what they did with her next (and was hoping she'd get those superman like powers at some point) It's X3 where she became truly worthless and misused and then Ratner went to the route of blasphemy (Because he decided she should get cured, and the producers and writers said she shouldn't)

I was looking forward to see the progression from insecure girl to tough chick. I love seeing her finally putting on an X-suit in the White House and looking all confident. But then X3 happened.

Another character who they totally ****ed up, well, let's say neglected, was Colossus. He had more lines in his small cameo role in X2, than as a member of the team in X3. The hell?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

A whole Wolverine Movie of this quality would be great.

That scene was SO much better in X2 than it was in Wolverine.

I hope Singer can fix the mess that was X3. I'd even be open to him taking it in a different direction and pretending that X3 never happened

Lets hope so! Or I at least hope he ret-cons plenty of stuff that happened in X3, like Cyclops dying and Rogue being cured, plus, I think its time for a new villain.

X-Maniac, I dont see how you can say X2 got mixed reviews when it first came as on Rottentomatoes it has had a scoree of 88% since it came out, it got more favourable reviews than Batman Begins did, not to mention it came out when comic book movies were still considered childish and werent as accepted as they are now.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

See I didn't mind the Rogue change in X1, and then in X2 I felt that she was progressing into an X-Man and wanted to see what they did with her next (and was hoping she'd get those superman like powers at some point) It's X3 where she became truly worthless and misused and then Ratner went to the route of blasphemy (Because he decided she should get cured, and the producers and writers said she shouldn't)

Yep, X3 took right back to X1 when she had slowly developed into something else in X2, a terrible decision that not only ruined the characters development but flushed down the toilet the whole previous 2 movies message of "its okay to be different."

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Do people seriously think Bryan is coming back?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see the dude helm the next X-Men and Superman films. But it's nothing more than him talking out loud. If there really were discussions (at least serious ones), he wouldn't be so open about it on a public forum.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Do people seriously think Bryan is coming back?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see the dude helm the next X-Men and Superman films. But it's nothing more than him talking out loud. If there really were discussions (at least serious ones), he wouldn't be so open about it on a public forum.

Stranger things have happened Jamie, are you saying its not going to happen?

 

[X-Maniac]

X-Maniac, I dont see how you can say X2 got mixed reviews when it first came as on Rottentomatoes it has had a scoree of 88% since it came out, it got more favourable reviews than Batman Begins did, not to mention it came out when comic book movies were still considered childish and werent as accepted as they are now.

I didn't say X2 got mixed reviews, so I don't see how I can say that either. You need to re-read what I ACTUALLY said.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Stranger things have happened Jamie, are you saying its not going to happen?

Anything's possible, sure. But I'm not holding my breath - nor should you.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I didn't say X2 got mixed reviews, so I don't see how I can say that either. You need to re-read what I ACTUALLY said.

#

Okay, you said it didnt get brilliant reviews, 88% seems pretty brilliant to me, especially at the time when some critics still thought comic book movies were a bit taboo.

Anything's possible, sure. But I'm not holding my breath - nor should you.

I'm not to be honest, but the possibility excites me, and if it gets announced, THEN I will get excited.

 

[The Guard]

X3 didn't really make that much money. It grossed about the same domestically as X2, but had a much larger budget which suggests to me that they were expecting a larger BO then what it did. Both films made less than Iron Man even, which I found surprising since IM is a way lesser known character.

X2 grossed $407,711,549 worldwide.
X3 grossed $459,359,555 worldwide. That's not "that much money"?

BATMAN BEGINS, which cost just $60 million less (if you believe budget numbers, and don't, because it was closer to $170 million) less than X3 was considered a fairly sizeable success, and grossed $372,710,015 worldwide.

You mentioned IRON MAN, which was a much lighter film, and grossed $585,133,287, and was considered a massive, massive hit by many.

I don't particularly care in the context of my statements if in the end, X3 made, percentagewise, as much money as X2 or other comic book films for the studio, though. I'm interested in whether people went to see it or not. The box office shows that people did.

Let's face it: IRON MAN made as much money as it did because it was an action/adventure comedy. The quality of the movie isn't that much more than the X-Men films, but it caught on because, while it was a pretty solid movie, it was mostly just a lot of fun, and because it was something almost anyone could go to and easily enjoy and understand. X3 as a film wasn't exactly about "fun", though there are certainly some exciting sequences in it.

For a fairly dark franchise with pretty mature themes, for something that is not exactly aimed at young children or broad audiences as much as something like Spider-Man or Iron Man are, and taking into account the fact that it had a very troubled history and some pretty lousy reviews and critic panning, I feel like X3 did very well.

My point is simple, though. Regardless of how it compares with other comic book films, X3was not a financial failure in any real sense.

WOLVERINE, despite, again, some pretty lousy reviews and a very, very troubled production, made $371,376,142 worldwide. People went to see that as well. And this is a solo film that boiled down to Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds as the main draw, without Patrick Stewart's Xavier, Ian McKellan's Magneto, etc.

I think people if people will support a subpar WOLVERINE, then they will probably go see a halfway decent X4, let alone one that looks amazing. Will it make as much or more than X3? Maybe, maybe not. But it will likely make money, regardless.

Anyway...

Random thoughts:

While I agree that Rogue could probably have been handled better in this franchise, how anyone can call Rogue "worthless" simply because she doesn't fight in the final battle is beyond me. You all act like Rogue was going to be flying around and cracking Southern jokes in X3 because of what happened in X2. That's just not the case.

And I get that no one likes Cyclops and Wolverine effectively "switching roles" (not that this is exactly what happened, as Wolverine's leadership role was completely different than the ones Cyclops has had in the comics over the years, and is actually fairly similar to the kinds of leadership roles he has taken on in X-Men lore). Have none of you ever read issues of the X-Men comics where Wolverine is a leader, especially in terms of going into battle? You act like this is something the movies made up.

 

[FaT_tONle]

At this point... all I want to see is an X-Men movie without Wolverine, with a decent runtime so that they can flesh out everyone. And I am not talking about Deadpool. I am disgusted that Wolverine 2 is going to be the next film. I understand Hugh ain't getting any younger, but try something else for a change.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^ Guard X3 was the third movie in a trilogy coming off the back of a largely successful and well recieved sequel.

Batman Begins was a re-boot after the previous series had released one of the worst movies ever as its final movie, they are hardly comparable.

IMO it is quite clear the WOM on X3 simply wasnt that good, same for Wolverine, as they were both expected to make more.

 

[The Guard]

Batman Begins was a re-boot after the previous series had released one of the worst movies ever as its final movie, they are hardly comparable.

One, you can compare anything. Two, I have no idea why you've even brought this up. It's really somewhat irrelevant to my statements, which amount to: BATMAN BEGINS' box office was considered a success, and THE LAST STAND made much more money, so how come it's a failure?

And BATMAN & ROBIN was not the cinematic death knell for Batman that people want to pretend it is. The reason we didn't get another Batman movie isn't because WB didn't want one, or because the public wouldn't have supported one...it's because WB, by nature, takes a LONG FREAKING TIME TO DEVELOP THEIR TENTPOLE COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

WB planned for several years to make a sequel to BATMAN & ROBIN. They abandoned it yes, but not because they thought no one would go see it, but because WB, by nature, takes a LONG FREAKING TIME TO DEVELOP THEIR TENTPOLE COMIC BOOK MOVIES, and by the time they got their butts in gear and decided yes, we want another Batman film and we're going to commit to making one, a sequel made less sense than a reboot.

So they planned YEAR ONE concepts, and worked on it fairly consistently in one fashion or another until the film finally happened. Nothing got off the ground because, until Chris Nolan was courted, no director that WB was happy with was particularly passionate about the material (Aronofsky took FOREVER to create his project, and became quickly disintered because of WATCHMEN and his obsession with THE FOUNTAIN) and because WB, by nature, takes a LONG FREAKING TIME TO DEVELOP THEIR TENTPOLE COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

The public making a few jokes about nipples and neon doesn't mean they would have rejected a decent Batman movie when it came along. That's just silly.

BATMAN FOREVER, for that matter, had nipples and neon and camp, and still made a ton of money, so obviously there's a level of campy adventure people were ready to accept. BATMAN & ROBIN was a misfire, to be sure, but it still made a decent chunk of change, even as a bad and universally panned movie (let alone merchandising and DVD and whatnot), and it's not like people were realistically never going to not go see a good Batman movie again.

BATMAN BEGINS was clearly marketed differently, developed differently, and was a different animal entirely. It had the following going for it:
-It was about Batman, and a fresh take on the character
-It looked really good
-Big action
-An acclaimed director in Chris Nolan, and several huge names, in Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, etc.
-Wonderful reviews

I mean, this whole nonsense about "BATMAN BEGINS was a huge risk because of BATMAN & ROBIN", I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. ANY movie is a risk, but Batman is as close to a sure thing as Hollywood has from the DC pantheon.

^X3 was the third movie in a trilogy coming off the back of a largely successful and well recieved sequel.

So what if it's the third film in a franchise? It still made a lot of money. Or is there some mathematical rule that all third movies in a fairly well received trilogy have to make ridiculous amounts of money beyond an already ridiculous amount of money simply because they're the third movie, despite their subject matter, production history, etc? The X-Men franchise was never the box office juggernaut that SPIDER-MAN and PIRATES have been. It's just not that mainstream. X3 was even darker, more somber, and more preachy about its themes than X2 had been. And again, TROUBLED PRODUCTION and BAD REVIEWS. And it STILL made a lot of money.

IMO it is quite clear the WOM on X3 simply wasnt that good, same for Wolverine, as they were both expected to make more.

I have no idea what you're basing this on. Your opinion apparently fails to take into account the box office, and the fact that, despite any bad reviews or "jokes" people made to their friends about this or that, X3 cleaned up pretty good at the theatre, and on DVD.

You think the average person cares about how unfaithful it was, gave two ****s that Cyclops died, that Wolverine, who they'd probably thought was supposed to be the leader, was a leadership role, and that X3 featured The Cure and the Dark Phoenix Saga in one film? Come on now. More to the point, do you think the average person even knows the difference in quality between X2 and X3 and the reasons for it? Doubt it.

 

[zenith16]

Well now that you mentioned it. Yes i can say that. i have friends that aren't hard core comic fans that found what was done to cyclops wrong and the lack of character development to the orther characters some what wrong too. there was too much of wolverine. Anyway how would you like to meet them?

Do you have steam? you know what you can just down load ventrilo and i can have you meet them there and they'll tell ya. that's up to you man.