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

[blueserenity]

Lol u dont Like a guy because he's a good hearted man who leads the team and does his best to exercise the philosophies of good? Amazing just amazing.

In real life, sure. As a character? Pass. The "all around good guys" aren't as interesting in my book. I like struggling characters with obvious flaws and hints of darkness (where possible). I like to see character ARCS. From what I've seen in the X-Men films, Cyclops' only real flaw is that he's annoyingly leader-like and insecure about his relationship with Jean which... yawn. He doesn't change at all between the 2-ish films he's in. I never liked Professor X for the same reason. Then First Class gave us an Xavier who was goodhearted but also naive, spoiled, and I daresay arrogant. We get to witness an incredible arc in him, which makes him interesting. Knocking him down from sainthood was a wise move because suddenly he's easier to relate to. The other movies he always felt out of reach. If they can give us a far more troubled Cyclops I'm in. Otherwise what could they possibly show of him that hasn't already been covered in the other movies?

 

[ciscostudent561]

Good point I agree with all that you bring up... He may be a boring character to most but I'm smitten by cyke.... They can come up work a food story for him
I believe though.

 

[Angamb]

I agree that they can write a decent arc for young Cyclops, its not a hard work, you know?

If they include him in FC3, they will surely give him a troubled origin.

 

[thedevilhunter]

mm.. not sure about the comparision.

But I really believe that the sequel will be the best grossing movie of the franchise.

Who knows?.... but I think it could reach $500M worlwide.

with the inflation and popularity of the cast by that time, and the great reception of FC, the sequel can give Fox more money than the previous movies.

I have looked at BO ananlysis and critics.

The consensus was that FC rejuvenates the franchise which was the case for Casino Royale and Batman Begins.

However, I think it is a very bad move from Fox to make another Wolverine film in case it is terrible and could tarnish Second class's hype. They should put all their focus on SC.

In other words, Wolverine movies screw up the franchise while getting the most money , Xavier and Magneto have to save it.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Singer has no clue what he's doing. Wasn't Superman Returns enough of a testament to that?

Singer revitalizing interest in the comic book genre with the first X-men was a testament to him having "a clue what he's doing."

X2 sitting on a lot of people's Top 5 Comic book movies also suggests that.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

Singer revitalizing interest in the comic book genre with the first X-men was a testament to him having "a clue what he's doing."

X2 sitting on a lot of people's Top 5 Comic book movies also suggests that.

He didn't revitalize anything.X-Men was going to be big with or without Singer. It's the frickn X-Men...if anything, Spiderman should be given the credit...

And if you ask me...Superman needed revitalizing a lot more than X-men...and he didn't fair to well at all...especially considering all of the resources WB allocated to him for Superman Returns

But X2 is a pretty great film.

 

[BMM]

Bull. X-Men, like any movie, could have just as easily failed.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Bull. X-Men, like any movie, could have just as easily failed.

Agreed.

Even though X-Men is my favorite, the source material isn't as big and iconic as characters like Batman and Superman. My brother and I went to X-Men: First Class last night, and had a long conversation beforehand about the comic book movie genre, and that's one of the topics that came up was that X-Men is not a guaranteed success in any shape for fashion.

Hell, it was originally a failure as a comic book... there's no way it was guaranteed to be a box office success.

 

[BMM]

None of these properties are a guaranteed success, especially in the beginning. One need point no further than ThanosOfTitans' post. You can't say X-Men was going to be big no matter what because "it's the frickin’ X-Men,” and then point out how SUPERMAN, the most recognizable superhero in the world, didn’t fare well because his movie was a misfire.

There are so many potential poor creative decisions that could have driven X-Men into the ground. Couple that with Fox, a studio that didn't seem to have much faith in the property to begin with, and it's a wonder we didn't end up with a real stinker on our hands.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I thought X-Men was amazing.

Sure, it was the most "boring" in the action department, but as far as I'm concerned it was the best movie of the series in terms of character, dialogue, and character interactions (which I guess is the definition of "dialogue", so yay me for repetitive redundancy.)

That's pretty much why coming out of my first viewing of X-Men: First Class I rated it so low compared to the rest of the franchise, because I felt that X-Men trumped it in the dialogue department. But watching it again, I felt that X-Men: First Class just had a better overall package, which in the end is why X-Men still rates the lowest on my list.

But, it's not because I think it's the "worst", I just think that the movies that followed all found ways to top it. It was the first movie of the series, therefore all the movies that followed raised the stakes higher than in X-Men, and told more iconic stories from the source material. However, I thought it was a great introduction to the world, and while lacking in the action department, still has some incredible character moments.

 

[fallenAngel]

I agree, I personally think X2 is a more satisfying movie overall, but I think the original X-men clearly introduces the characters, has a struggle/arc at least set up for everyone and takes the time to develop them. It feels much more like an ensemble than any of the other movies to me. I remember when it first came out I wasn't that smitten with it since it wasn't flashy, but I saw it again with my aunt and uncle and my aunt who is usually lost on sci-fi thought all the characters were memorable and the message was good.

I think one of the reasons why it was a success was that it was weird and interesting but also accessible and very relatable on a fundamental level. Which is the greatest strength of the X-men comics. It has clear substance built into its premise.

If memory serves 2000 was a pretty crappy summer for movies though. That can probably attest to some of its success. The only other big movie that I remember was the Planet of the Apes remake and that was pretty awful.

But I think anyone who doesn't think Singer deserves props for his effort should watch the old Fantastic Four and Captain American TV movies. Maybe not the best comparison but this was the crap that was being branded with the Marvel logo movie prior to X-men.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I would agree that X2 is better. The stakes are raised, and while maybe it doesn't have all of the memorable dialogue like X-Men, it still focuses very heavily on the character, while also giving us a bit more spectacle (Nightcrawler's White House attack, Stryker's invasion of Xavier's school, Magneto's escape from prison, and Jean Grey's sacrifice at Alkali Lake are all incredibly memorable moments)

Of the 5 movies, X2 and X-Men: First Class are the 2 movies that really combined satisfying action sequences with depth at the character level

X-Men gave us great character depth, but lacked spectacle.

X-Men: The Last Stand had great spectacle, but only gave us the bare minimum of character depth.

I thought X-Men Origins: Wolverine had a satisfying mixture of character and action, but didn't reach the level of X2 or X-Men: First Class in that regard.

I'd say overall, X-Men: First Class is the better film than X-Men, but it's certainly not an introduction. I'm not sure that I could have asked for a much better introduction into the world than X-Men. I don't mind that the characters were "toned down"... their displays of powers are only part of what I like about the X-Men world. What I like most about these characters and this world is that they can tell great stories without ever using their mutant powers. The actual foundation these stories are built is one of character, relationships, and ideologies, not so much the fact that these guys are "super heroes".

 

[akfj]

If memory serves 2000 was a pretty crappy summer for movies though. That can probably attest to some of its success. The only other big movie that I remember was the Planet of the Apes remake and that was pretty awful.

The Planet of the Apes remake came out in 2001, so I guess 2000 really wasn't that memorable for you.

FYI, 2000 was the summer of Mission: Impossible 2 and Gladiator.

 

[fallenAngel]

The Planet of the Apes remake came out in 2001, so I guess 2000 really wasn't that memorable for you.

FYI, 2000 was the summer of Mission: Impossible 2 and Gladiator.

haha. That's right, because the main thing I remember taking away from Planet of the Apes was the Lord of the Rings trailer.

I do remember Gladiator but that was early May is memory serves. And I remember being one of the few people who didn't care for that movie. So I forgot about it till the oscars.

 

[EnDz0n3]

He didn't revitalize anything.X-Men was going to be big with or without Singer. It's the frickn X-Men...if anything, Spiderman should be given the credit...

And if you ask me...Superman needed revitalizing a lot more than X-men...and he didn't fair to well at all...especially considering all of the resources WB allocated to him for Superman Returns

But X2 is a pretty great film.

Here's an article from boxofficemojo.com all the way back from 2000 to counter your argument that the first X-men movie was a guaranteed success. Even a day before its July 14 release, boxofficemojo was still predicting an opening in the mid 30 Mil-range. It opened $54 Mil that weekend.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1125&p=.htm

 

[psylockolussus]

Here's an article from boxofficemojo.com all the way back from 2000 to counter your argument that the first X-men movie was a guaranteed success. Even a day before its July 14 release, boxofficemojo was still predicting an opening in the mid 30 Mil-range. It opened $54 Mil that weekend.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1125&p=.htm

Wow BOM definitely under-estimated the first X-Men movie.

 

[zanos]

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.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

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.

And they all came after the comic book movie boom that was started by X-Men and taken to higher levels by Spiderman.

Both X-Men and Spiderman deserve credit for their contributions to the comic book genre. X-Men brought it to life. Spiderman made it the trend that it is.

The rest of your post, I'm not even going to get into, because I couldn't possibly disagree more with what you said.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

Bull. X-Men, like any movie, could have just as easily failed.

In my opinion, X-Men (the first movie) is a failure. I'm not speaking in terms of box office receipts and financial success...but it's a very underwhelming film concerning story, action, and script. I can see where you're coming from when you say X-Men could have failed just as easily as any other movie....

But I still don't agree. Posters say how Singer made X-men so great, but in my opinion...the X-Men movies are pretty much what made Singer great for the short time he had his moment in the spotlight. He gets a lot of credit just from being attached to the X-Men films (among other things)...but he hasn't produced anything remotely great or even good since being attached as director of the X-Men. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Honestly, I think X1 performed as well as it did financially mostly because it's the frickin X-Men...certainly not because it's a good movie, because it's not (but that's just my opinion). I will admit though...Singer did a great job with X2.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

Here's an article from boxofficemojo.com all the way back from 2000 to counter your argument that the first X-men movie was a guaranteed success. Even a day before its July 14 release, boxofficemojo was still predicting an opening in the mid 30 Mil-range. It opened $54 Mil that weekend.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1125&p=.htm

Considering how disappointed I was after seeing X-Men for the first time, I'd say 54 million is pretty successful and probably more than any other mediocre movie of a lesser name would have made.

When a movie as underwhelming as X1 is able to make as much money as it did...I'd call that a guaranteed success. But we clearly have different interpretations of the situation.

 

[Angamb]

Its curious, because X1 is my fave movie from the franchise

But I really understand your points.

 

[nick22]

I completely agree - watched X1 again after watching First Class and there's no comparison - Vaughn successfully introduces each character effectively in a shorter amount of time than Singer. I liked X1 but it was a bit too slow for the first hour

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

In my opinion, X-Men (the first movie) is a failure. I'm not speaking in terms of box office receipts and financial success...but it's a very underwhelming film concerning story, action, and script. I can see where you're coming from when you say X-Men could have failed just as easily as any other movie....

But I still don't agree. Posters say how Singer made X-men so great, but in my opinion...the X-Men movies are pretty much what made Singer great for the short time he had his moment in the spotlight. He gets a lot of credit just from being attached to the X-Men films (among other things)...but he hasn't produced anything remotely great or even good since being attached as director of the X-Men. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Honestly, I think X1 performed as well as it did financially mostly because it's the frickin X-Men...certainly not because it's a good movie, because it's not (but that's just my opinion). I will admit though...Singer did a great job with X2.

It's your opinion, sure, but I would say it's not the majority opinion.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but when you're using your opinion to say why X-Men shouldn't have been a success, I think it is relevant that your opinion isn't shared by most.

 

[BMM]

In my opinion, X-Men (the first movie) is a failure. I'm not speaking in terms of box office receipts and financial success...but it's a very underwhelming film concerning story, action, and script. I can see where you're coming from when you say X-Men could have failed just as easily as any other movie....

But I still don't agree. Posters say how Singer made X-men so great, but in my opinion...the X-Men movies are pretty much what made Singer great for the short time he had his moment in the spotlight. He gets a lot of credit just from being attached to the X-Men films (among other things)...but he hasn't produced anything remotely great or even good since being attached as director of the X-Men. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Honestly, I think X1 performed as well as it did financially mostly because it's the frickin X-Men...certainly not because it's a good movie, because it's not (but that's just my opinion). I will admit though...Singer did a great job with X2.

Again, I respectfully disagree. You don’t get to say X-Men is a big hit, as though it wrote its own success regardless of its director, and then turn around and say that a Superman movie, starring the most recognizable superhero in the world, didn’t fare well because of its director. Outside of The Animated Series, the X-Men had no mainstream exposure beyond the books, and I’m not going to pretend that the comic book fanbase single-handedly made X-Men a success or that the general audience had just been waiting to financially reward the likes of Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr upon their cinematic debuts, when the truth is I doubt many people knew who these characters were 11 years ago.

Name recognition only gets you so far. Content gets you the rest of the way, and there are 50 years worth of good, bad, and absolute crap to choose from and interpret in the X-Men universe. Obviously the content Singer selected resonated with people because, unlike Daredevil and the other examples zanos provided, X-Men went on to spawn an even more successful sequel and three films after that. No, the costumes may not have been faithful and the action scenes may not have been the best, but at least Singer didn't hire Nicholas Cage to play Wolverine and at least he didn't have him fight Lady Deathstryke on a seesaw, during recess.

 

[zanos]

And they all came after the comic book movie boom that was started by X-Men and taken to higher levels by Spiderman.

Both X-Men and Spiderman deserve credit for their contributions to the comic book genre. X-Men brought it to life. Spiderman made it the trend that it is.

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?