Days of Future Past "First Class" does what "X-Men (2000)" couldn't do.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Do you honestly believe that if FF had come out first it wouldn't have made over a hundred million dollars all on it's own?

Quite possibly not. X-Men and Spiderman made comic book movies "in".

 

[S.A.A.D.]

It did something what it couldn't do alright, it managed to easily be the better X-Men and comic book movie.

 

[henzINNIT]

Do you honestly believe that if FF had come out first it wouldn't have made over a hundred million dollars all on it's own?

It's one thing to disagree with general concensus over a film's quality, but you sound so pumped on haterade right now denying the film's impact and success. Who cares about hypotheticals? Facts are: X-Men preceded the comic movie boom and was a critical and financial success.

 

[marvelrobbins]

X-Men started the boom.Many wouldn't have gotten made had it not been for X-Men.This Is a fact.

Few were thinking X-Men would he a huge sucess back In 2000.

People also need to remember Bryan Singe had bursted onto scene with The Usual Suspects.It may have only grossed 25 Million domesitcly but was very talked about and was ripped off a lot.I find It funny that the Singer haters are using First Class which he devolped the story,was handson Producer,and was originally going to direct to bash him.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

X-Men started the boom.Many wouldn't have gotten made had it not been for X-Men.This Is a fact.

Few were thinking X-Men would he a huge sucess back In 2000.

People also need to remember Bryan Singe had bursted onto scene with The Usual Suspects.It may have only grossed 25 Million domesitcly but was very talked about and was ripped off a lot.I find It funny that the Singer haters are using First Class which he devolped the story,was handson Producer,and was originally going to direct to bash him.

I'm glad we got another X-Men movie, but First Class really isn't all that great in my opinion. It's slightly better than X1. X2 is still the best X-Men film to date (IMO). Kudos to Singer for X2 and the direction he wanted to take the Phoenix.

I'm not a Singer hater, but it just baffles me that he receives so much credit when his work is consistently average.

I mean, his work on Superman Returns speaks for itself. He hit the mark with X2, but beyond that...I can't really credit him for anything else. I don't believe he should be credited for the current boom of comic book movies. The first Spiderman movie definitely deserves all the credit (and I'm not even a fan of Spiderman).

 

[psylockolussus]

FF, Ghost Rider and DD all made well over a hundred million dollars for chrissakes! X-Men was pretty much guaranteed to make over a hundred million dollars no matter who directed it. Claims that Singer revitalized the comic book genre is just plain silly. Like no one was going to watch Spider-man if Singer hadn't directed X-Men, lol!!

Both X-Men and X2 were horribly disappointing films. What was supposed to be an ensemble turned into the Wolverine and friends show. Then there was the bad costumes, lack of good action sequences, etc. I don't know how anyone can watch X2 and say that it was a great X-Men/comic book movie when Singer never even respected all the characters. Jean, Storm and Cyclops were just there to stand around and look pretty. They barely had any dialogue in the first film and Halle Berry was horribly cast. I question whether anyone even cared whether these characters lived or died.

HATER

 

[zanos]

Quite possibly not. X-Men and Spiderman made comic book movies "in".

Sorry, but summer popcorn movies of the scifi fantasy variety with big special effects are made or broken on their marketing campaign. They're not dependent on some movie that came out years ahead of it. If we are to follow your logic, Batman Begins should have been an absolute bomb, since the previous Batman film was the one which supposedly brought the genre down.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Sorry, but summer popcorn movies of the scifi fantasy variety with big special effects are made or broken on their marketing campaign. They're not dependent on some movie that came out years ahead of it. If we are to follow your logic, Batman Begins should have been an absolute bomb, since the previous Batman film was the one which supposedly brought the genre down.

Difference being, the shift in how comic book movies were handled by studios allowed Batman Begins to be a success. Because of X-Men, and then Spiderman two years later, comic books were seen as a legitimate genre of film, not the joke that the latter Batman films (along with films like the Dolph Lundgren Punisher, and TV shows like The Flash) turned them into.

And you want to talk about a single film revitalizing an entire genre - take a look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and all the fantasy films that followed in it's success. We weren't getting fantasy films regularly before Lord of the Rings, but afterwards, they were coming out constantly. I wonder why that is...

And if you want to talk about marketing campaigns, why is Green Lantern apparently doing so terribly at the box office?

 

[BMM]

In addition to The Lord of the Rings, look at Harry Potter and the number of movies that tried to duplicate its success thanks to its reception. While marketing campaigns no doubt play a part in a movie's success, pretending that previous entries don't make a difference is utter bull. If anything, their success acts as a marketing campaign itself, nevermind helps subsequent marketing campaigns that much more. After how much I liked the first seven Harry Potter movies, do you think Warner Bros. is really going to have to try hard to convince me to see The Deathly Hallows Part 2? I don't think so. The same can be said for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. God knows Marvel is banking on the success of The Avengers, thanks to the reception of Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. Getting people through the door is one thing, keeping them invested is another.

 

[zanos]

Difference being, the shift in how comic book movies were handled by studios allowed Batman Begins to be a success. Because of X-Men, and then Spiderman two years later, comic books were seen as a legitimate genre of film, not the joke that the latter Batman films (along with films like the Dolph Lundgren Punisher, and TV shows like The Flash) turned them into.

What you fail to comprehend is that each time a silly superhero film or tv show fails, viewers were always eager to watch what came out next. This is why shows like Spider-man, Hulk, WW, Batman and Flash had huge initial ratings. Eventually they were cancelled, but this has not deterred anyone from continuing to flock to the latest superhero related film or tv show. This has always been the trend. People stopped watching the Batman films because they sucked, not because they grew tired of your so called comic book genre. Even so, the last film, as bad as it was, still grossed over 100 million dollars. A major property like X-Men with it's cool characters and generation of fans was bound to get a big box office and make over a hundred million dollars regardless of who was directing it. The Hulk was absolutely god awful and it still made over 130 million. This idea that Singer somehow "revitalized" the superhero movie is the biggest pile horse s.hit I've ever heard. If anything the superhero movie revitalized his career!

And you want to talk about a single film revitalizing an entire genre - take a look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and all the fantasy films that followed in it's success. We weren't getting fantasy films regularly before Lord of the Rings, but afterwards, they were coming out constantly. I wonder why that is...

As far as I can tell medieval fantasy movies have been non existent since the last LOTR movie. If there was one or two that I missed they've obviously been bombs at the box office. Your argument is completely pointless.

And if you want to talk about marketing campaigns, why is Green Lantern apparently doing so terribly at the box office?

You actually thought Green Lantern was marketed successfully?

 

[zanos]

In addition to The Lord of the Rings, look at Harry Potter and the number of movies that tried to duplicate its success thanks to its reception. While marketing campaigns no doubt play a part in a movie's success, pretending that previous entries don't make a difference is utter bull. If anything, their success acts as a marketing campaign itself, nevermind helps subsequent marketing campaigns that much more. After how much I liked the first seven Harry Potter movies, do you think Warner Bros. is really going to have to try hard to convince me to see The Deathly Hallows Part 2? I don't think so. The same can be said for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. God knows Marvel is banking on the success of The Avengers, thanks to the reception of Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. Getting people through the door is one thing, keeping them invested is another.

Yes, they tried, and failed. For your argument to make any kind of sense, you and and everyone who loved Harry Potter would be storming to the theaters to watch the Dark is Rising, Inkheart, Percy Jackson, City of Ember, Golden Compass, Cirque du Freak, and the Spiderwick Chronicles! Virtually every one of these films died a horrible death. If the biggest children's fantasy films in history can't get kids to watch other chidlren's fantasy films then what effect can something with much lesser recognition possibly have on an entire genre? It seems like it's always the basic assumption in hollywood that if you come out with something and it's successful that must mean that loads of ppl are interested in more movies of that type, but it's almost never true. Star Wars wasn't able to do it, Star Trek wasn't, Lord of the Rings didn't and neither has Harry Potter. I realize it's easy to point a logical finger and say, "look, X-Men came out first, so that must mean they influenced audiences to watch more superhero movies." That's not how it works. Read what I wrote to Nell. Audiences have always had a fascination with Superheroes. It's the reason why this new sub genre of scifi and fantasy continues to thrive over 10 years since the first X-Men movie came out, when logic tells you that they should have been burned out after 3 years at the very most.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The latter Batman movies sucked because they weren't treated with any kind of seriousness.

Fox didn't initially have much faith in X-Men. Why? If it's such a sure hit that you are making it out to be, because people loved superheroes so much, and it was a certain success, why were they hesitant?

I think the fact that a major movie studio was nervous about their own superhero property is testament enough to how comic book movies were viewed at that time.

If people loved superheroes so much, loved the genre so much, all those TV shows wouldn't be cancelled after one season. The fact that they were cancelled shows that people didn't watch them. Superheroes were a kid's genre. Thanks to X-Men, and then 2 years later Spiderman, superheroes became an adult genre that could be taken seriously.

 

[zanos]

The latter Batman movies sucked because they weren't treated with any kind of seriousness.

Fox didn't initially have much faith in X-Men. Why? If it's such a sure hit that you are making it out to be, because people loved superheroes so much, and it was a certain success, why were they hesitant?

I think the fact that a major movie studio was nervous about their own superhero property is testament enough to how comic book movies were viewed at that time.

I don't know if the studios were nervous, but if they were, it's likely because of the boxoffice takes of Superman 4 and Batman 4. I can only assume that studio execs completely forgot the mania surrounding the release of both the first films in these two franchises. If that doesn't tell you ppl love superheroes I don't know what will.

If people loved superheroes so much, loved the genre so much, all those TV shows wouldn't be cancelled after one season. The fact that they were cancelled shows that people didn't watch them. Superheroes were a kid's genre. Thanks to X-Men, and then 2 years later Spiderman, superheroes became an adult genre that could be taken seriously.

Batman lasted 120 episodes, WW had 3 seasons and the Incredible Hulk had 5 and a bunch of tv movies. The Flash was the only one that was axed after one season and I suspect this had more to do with how expensive the show was rather than the lack of ratings. People still watched and loved those shows with all their flaws and low tech effects.