Days of Future Past First Class Sequel - July 18, 2014

[psylockolussus]

That's what I've been trying to tell them... and they're not getting it.

Folks, I'd rather have Fox and Vaughn focus on making a good sequel first. When that's in order, then pick the best release date for it. Whether that means moving DoFP up to early July, keeping it in the July 18 spot or moving it to early spring or fall 2014... the quality is what's important.

X-Men will do fine in any release date. Make a good movie, get the word out, and promote it right -- people will flock to see it whether it's in February, March, April, July or even early November.

Umm you have to remember that this movie will cost at least more than $120 million and just because its going to be a good movie, it doesn't mean it will automatically do well at the Box-Office if its released on any month. FOX always releases the X-Men movies during the summer because there are more money, more people watch movies during the summer compare to months like January, February, September and October.

First Class was released on June and a lot of people said that it didn't do that well because of the release date and that it should have been released in May or July. And now that the movie finally got a July release date, we suddenly got this news about The Hobbit opening in the same day with X-Men: Days of Future Past. Its not a good news.

 

[mclay18]

Umm you have to remember that this movie will cost at least more than $120 million and just because its going to be a good movie, it doesn't mean it will automatically do well at the Box-Office if its released on any month. FOX always releases the X-Men movies during the summer because there are more money, more people watch movies during the summer compare to months like January, February, September and October.

You just contradicted yourself. A big franchise movie doesn't have to be released in the summer or Thanksgiving/Christmas to be a monster hit. (See 300, The Hunger Games and Alice in Wonderland which were released in March.) Marvel Studios and Disney are going off the path with giving Captain America 2 a April 2014 release and releasing Guardians of the Galaxy in August.

And since studios are staking out the hot dates 2-3 years in advance, like Avengers 2 already set for May 1, 2015, just because a big franchise movie doesn't have a prime spot in summertime doesn't mean it can't be successful in March or early November. Moving to less crowded territory is no longer a reliable sign a studio wants to bury a film.

First Class was released on June and a lot of people said that it didn't do that well because of the release date and that it should have been released in May or July. And now that the movie finally got a July release date, we suddenly got this news about The Hobbit opening in the same day with X-Men: Days of Future Past. Its not a good news.

That's Fox's fault for fast-tracking X-Men: First Class at an accelerated rate... Vaughn had less than a year to prep, shoot, and edit the film (and it was miraculous it ended up as good as it did). And then you add the fact that a lot of people were burnt on Origins: Wolverine two years ago...

 

[X-Maniac]

You just contradicted yourself. A big franchise movie doesn't have to be released in the summer or Thanksgiving/Christmas to be a monster hit. (See 300, The Hunger Games and Alice in Wonderland which were released in March.) Marvel Studios and Disney are going off the path with giving Captain America 2 a April 2014 release and releasing Guardians of the Galaxy in August.

And since studios are staking out the hot dates 2-3 years in advance, like Avengers 2 already set for May 1, 2015, just because a big franchise movie doesn't have a prime spot in summertime doesn't mean it can't be successful in March or early November. Moving to less crowded territory is no longer a reliable sign a studio wants to bury a film.

If any time of year is fine for a film, then why did Warner Bros zero in on July - and more specifically on the same weekend occupied by X-Men?

The LoTR films are traditionally winter releases and, on the strength of the source material, fared well at that time of year. The first two Hobbit instalments are carrying on with that pattern.

Suddenly, WB wants a summer release for the third one. According to your argument, a film can be a hit at any time of year, so why then does WB want July? The final part of The Hobbit would be a surefire hit whenever released, especially because of the anticipation caused by the two previous films.

That's Fox's fault for fast-tracking X-Men: First Class at an accelerated rate... Vaughn had less than a year to prep, shoot, and edit the film (and it was miraculous it ended up as good as it did). And then you add the fact that a lot of people were burnt on Origins: Wolverine two years ago...

I don't think that many people (the mainstream audiences who are the main people seeing movies) were that 'burned' by XMO: Wolverine. I can think of a couple of people who regard it as their favourite X-Men film, simply because they have the hots for Jackman.

More than likely, First Class didn't do massively well because of 1) absence of megastars / familiar faces like Jackman 2) utterly abysmal marketing (no proper premiere, and here in UK the publicity consisted of McAvoy on a late-night chat show mocking his character's hand-on-temple gestures) 3) a crowded calendar of releases that suffocated it.

 

[mclay18]

If any time of year is fine for a film, then why did Warner Bros zero in on July - and more specifically on the same weekend occupied by X-Men?

Studios have done this ALL the time, to try and force the competition to move elsewhere. Why does this sound new to you guys?

And even if Fox doesn't move DoFP, it doesn't mean it will fail just because it's pitted against another big film. December 2009 and January 2010 proves there's room for several blockbusters.

Suddenly, WB wants a summer release for the third one. According to your argument, a film can be a hit at any time of year, so why then does WB want July? The final part of The Hobbit would be a surefire hit whenever released, especially because of the anticipation caused by the two previous films.

Like I said before, studios do this to try and get their competition to move elsewhere. WB and every other big studio (including Fox) are guilty of this.

And for another, the mid-July release pattern has been very good to WB, ever since they started doing it in 2007 with Harry Potter 5. They need something for 2014 that's likely to perform well in summer. Trust me, if WB had their crap in order for their DC comic-book movies -- Hobbit 3 would've been moved to December 19, 2014.

Why are you guys still stuck on an "X-Men is a summer movie" mentality?

 

[X-Maniac]

Studios have done this ALL the time, to try and force the competition to move elsewhere. Why does this sound new to you guys?

And even if Fox doesn't move DoFP, it doesn't mean it will fail just because it's pitted against another big film. December 2009 and January 2010 proves there's room for several blockbusters.

But why does WB need to force X-Men to move? It doesn't. There's other slots on the calendar, especially since The Hobbit/LoTR franchise has a tradition of winter releasing

Like I said before, studios do this to try and get their competition to move elsewhere. WB and every other big studio (including Fox) are guilty of this.

And for another, the mid-July release pattern has been very good to WB, ever since they started doing it in 2007 with Harry Potter 5. They need something for 2014 that's likely to perform well in summer. Trust me, if WB had their crap in order for their DC comic-book movies -- Hobbit 3 would've been moved to December 19, 2014.

Why are they so desperate for a summer release? It still doesn't add up. If they just want to have a summer hit, then that wrecks your logic of 'any time of year is okay.'

Why are you guys still stuck on an "X-Men is a summer movie" mentality?

Because of tradition/history. It's not proven to have worked in another timeslot.

I'm not saying it wouldn't/couldn't work if released at another time, but I can see why Fox picked the spot it did pick. WB/Hobbit is the one playing dirty here.

 

[psylockolussus]

You just contradicted yourself. A big franchise movie doesn't have to be released in the summer or Thanksgiving/Christmas to be a monster hit. (See 300, The Hunger Games and Alice in Wonderland which were released in March.) Marvel Studios and Disney are going off the path with giving Captain America 2 a April 2014 release and releasing Guardians of the Galaxy in August.

And since studios are staking out the hot dates 2-3 years in advance, like Avengers 2 already set for May 1, 2015, just because a big franchise movie doesn't have a prime spot in summertime doesn't mean it can't be successful in March or early November. Moving to less crowded territory is no longer a reliable sign a studio wants to bury a film.

I said September/October/February and January. Those movies you mentioned didn't premiere in those months that I said.

 

[JP]

I'm confused by mclay18's logic and reason. If everything you say is sound, then why can't The Hobbit move to another date.

I don't understand the defense of The Hobbit as if Fox is the one that should move with no problem.

 

[mclay18]

I'm confused by mclay18's logic and reason. If everything you say is sound, then why can't The Hobbit move to another date.

I've already explained it -- WB's 2014 slate is slim right now, and they need a summer pic to draw in audiences (summer is just as lucrative as November/December). Right now, they don't have a clear idea of how to exploit their DC Comics section in live-action form after next year -- and they need a reliable summer film to anchor right now. And right now, WB's rivals have already staked out prime dates in March, May, June, July and November. So WB did the next best thing... pitting their franchise against a rival's big franchise pic on the same date -- in the hopes that Fox will move it back.

If you keep saying "well, X-Men has always been a summer blockbuster and it should stay that way!" -- I advise you guys to look at several franchises that have alternated between fall and summer and have done well:

Mission Impossible
- Fourth film came out in December rather than summer; ended up being the highest-grossing pic worldwide in the franchise
Twilight
- Third film, which came out mid-summer, is highest grossing movie in the franchise domestically (which is a fall-dominated franchise).
Harry Potter
- Half were summer releases (and the other half in the fall), and have done extremely well irregardless of the release dates.

DoFP would seriously clean up in an early November 2014 release. Superhero films could really benefit from the audience bump a November/December release would grant. And it'd have more legs too.

 

[JP]

November 2014 is already secured for Mockingjay domination.

 

[Snikt]

I agree with whoever said FOX should just swap DOFP and APES. APES did incredibly well for an August release. It should do well again.

The two highest grossing X-Men opened in May (first week of May and Memorial Day weekend).

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I don't understand the defense of The Hobbit as if Fox is the one that should move with no problem.

I don't understand the problem at all. The big fish doesn't move to a different pond, it just eats the small fish.

had Fox concentrated on making good x-movies all along instead of cutting corners they might not have to worry about a bigger kid taking their release date. As it stands they can either move or go head to head w/The Hobbit. But acting like WB is playing dirty pool or something is stupid. Any date out there is fair game for whatever studio wants it.

 

[Changeling]

I've already explained it -- WB's 2014 slate is slim right now, and they need a summer pic to draw in audiences (summer is just as lucrative as November/December). Right now, they don't have a clear idea of how to exploit their DC Comics section in live-action form after next year -- and they need a reliable summer film to anchor right now. And right now, WB's rivals have already staked out prime dates in March, May, June, July and November. So WB did the next best thing... pitting their franchise against a rival's big franchise pic on the same date -- in the hopes that Fox will move it back.

If you keep saying "well, X-Men has always been a summer blockbuster and it should stay that way!" -- I advise you guys to look at several franchises that have alternated between fall and summer and have done well:

Mission Impossible
- Fourth film came out in December rather than summer; ended up being the highest-grossing pic worldwide in the franchise
Twilight
- Third film, which came out mid-summer, is highest grossing movie in the franchise domestically (which is a fall-dominated franchise).
Harry Potter
- Half were summer releases (and the other half in the fall), and have done extremely well irregardless of the release dates.

DoFP would seriously clean up in an early November 2014 release. Superhero films could really benefit from the audience bump a November/December release would grant. And it'd have more legs too.

Irregardless isn't a word.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Irregardless isn't a word.

Merriam-Webster disagrees.

The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

 

[Morning Root]

Merriam-Webster disagrees.

The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

True. But even Merriam-Webster agrees that we ought to "use regardless instead."

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It sure does.

 

[X-Maniac]

Merriam-Webster disagrees.

The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

Irregardless has only entered some dictionaries because many people keep saying it without knowing that they are talking nonsense.

Irr- means 'not' as in irregular (not regular) or irrelevant (not relevant).

Adding -less (without, having none) on to the end of a word is also a negative thing. Lawless = having no laws, flawless = having no flaws, harmless = causing no harm.

So 'irregardless' is nonsense because it contains two negative things, the irr and the less. It means 'not without regard', which is a double negative and so means 'having regard.' It's as silly as saying irrelevantless or nonirregular or irregularless. Or insenseless or unimpossible or unflawless.

Yes, language can change and evolve, but when things like this make no sense, then it's worth pointing them out and clinging on to logical use of language wherever possible.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Meh*

*also a word.

 

[Loganbabe]

and here in UK the publicity consisted of McAvoy on a late-night chat show mocking his character's hand-on-temple gestures)

I don't know why you have to bring this every time as one of the reasons why the film under performed. It's not fair to blame McAvoy for one single interview in a show that is based
on comedy itself. It's like he never did anything to promote the film properly, and the lack of promotion from the other actors is never mentioned.

As for WB's bullying attitude, my vote is that Fox keeps the date and show them. I hope that The Hobbit tanks for good.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm sure poor, bullied Fox has never ever ever taken another films release date before.

 

[JP]

I'm sure poor, bullied Fox has never ever ever taken another films release date before.

Everyone keeps saying things like this, in defense of WB.


Please, SOMEONE show me some receipts. Show me a time when a major film set a release date that was then followed by another major film setting the same release date with the full intention of "pushing" the other film out.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't know why you have to bring this every time as one of the reasons why the film under performed. It's not fair to blame McAvoy for one single interview in a show that is based
on comedy itself. It's like he never did anything to promote the film properly, and the lack of promotion from the other actors is never mentioned.

As I said before, I was disappointed because he didn't really 'sell' the film, he wasn't at all upbeat or enthusiastic about it as far as I recall. That was the only promotional interview I was aware of in the UK, and it didn't really do a good job. I can't say any more than that about it. That's how I felt about what I saw, like a good chance was wasted.

I have no idea why the other actors didn't get to do any promotional interviews. But that's down to the studio or their agents, or whoever makes these people available for these things.

So I'm just a bit sad that it didn't get very good promotion on the whole. The marketing was terrible. It needed a London premiere.

As for WB's bullying attitude, my vote is that Fox keeps the date and show them. I hope that The Hobbit tanks for good.

I doubt the Hobbit will tank, but I share your annoyance with their attitude towards this.

 

[Lord]

Mc Avoy and Fassbender were actually making fun of the characters relationship all the time, didn't mean they disliked them, it just meant they were having fun with the movie.

 

[Neo_3]

November 2014 is already secured for Mockingjay domination.

Look at November already has Catching Fire and Thor 2.

 

[Neo_3]

I agree with whoever said FOX should just swap DOFP and APES. APES did incredibly well for an August release. It should do well again.

The two highest grossing X-Men opened in May (first week of May and Memorial Day weekend).

Most SH sequels tend to do better than the first one. Look at FC, the sequel is guaranteed to do more if it opened it May or November.

 

[Neo_3]

Why not December? December 2014 only has Minions. Why not release it December 19?