FF films and elektra don't have squat to do with X-Men films.
The martian is doing good at box office and with critics despite having Kinberg
as producer.
X-Men,X2,and first class are all In the 80's and DOFP Is at 91% similar to
GOTG.
I don't care about about studio average.I care about indivual films.I know
crazy notion.Just like call me crazy but in X-Men section many people actully like X-Men films inless your talking about last stand and origins
t: and are excited for future films.
Oh I completely agree with you, FF and Elektra don't belong in the same conversation but they were produced by Fox. Although Avi Arad was also involved with them.
The Martian is amazing due to it having a great script and great director. Remember Ang Lee's Hulk? Great direction, but such a horrible script. If Gambit can nail a great director like Doug Liman and if the script is really good, I have faith in it. After all, we know nothing.
Studio averages mean nothing for something like Fox, especially in regards to X-Men. They've had Richard Donner, Lauren Shuller Donner, Gavin Hood, Avi Arad, Tim Rothman and such involved. I simply put it up there that while we can defend that Fox makes great X-Men movies, they have failed elsewhere. Not everyone can make Spider-Man 2.
So only 4 out of 12 Fox-Marvel films have higher RT scores than 2 of arguably the worse MCU films and yet you use the term "Fox hater" as if it's a bad thing or something to be ashamed of...?
What you call typical I simply call common sense, especially after the crap Fox flung at screens this past Summer.
t:
It's not even like those IM sequel ratings are bad they're just panned by most Fans. They're all higher than any of Jackman's solo films which IMO is still crazy to this day! I mean shouldn't all X-men films be better than what used to be a B list Marvel character anyway....?
But since YOU brought up RT scores here are my early predictions for 2016!
Deadpool: 55%-65% (Yeah, you all love the trailers but critics won't be so loving)
X-men:Apoc: 65%-75% (Singer erased past plot holes only to make new ones)
Gambit: N/A (pushed back to 2017 or whenever)
You're welcome.
You have to consider the situation and who represented Fox for each of those movies. Whether it was Avi Arad, Shuler Donner or Rothman or someone else. The production team has not really ever been constant. You also have to realize that if you look at Fox vs. Marvel, it doesn't really apply. Fox as an entity churns out more movies and has more critical and commercial successes than Marvel as a whole. X-Men aren't really a big part of their programme and of that Gambit is a passion project for a studio head. You'd have to compare Fox against Disney, which is a Star Wars argument if anything.
Your Rotten Tomatoes predictions may well be true. Personally I think for Deadpool you may be spot on, but Deadpool is pretty much a stoner comedy with violence instead of meth. The score doesn't matter for it. What matters is which critics hate it and how much money it makes. (Piss off the right critic and it means your movie made people laugh)
Apocalypse I'll say is a little low, but that number is still respectable. However, your reasoning is not. I believe you're mistaking plot holes for continuity issues between films. Critics do not care about those. If they did, Mad Max: Fury Road would not be acclaimed. Hell, X-Men: First Class would not be acclaimed.
Gambit, we'll see.
I don't think Marvel has released any POS, but they do have a number of disappointments.
I disagree. Iron Man II is horrible.
Yeah especially since they're all south of 50% on RT
t:
Right because going by your first sentence only X-men films matters.
t:
So in 15yrs Fox did once what Marvel did thrice in 7? Thanks for bringing that up.....
Oh I understand, just bring up the 4 Fox Marvel films that critics loved and disregard any notions that don't benefit whatever point you're trying to make right now.
Production wise, they have little to do with X-Men either.
Production wise, the Martian is connected to the modern day X-Men film.
Again, not fair to compare Fox to Marvel since Fox is an entirely different "animal" to Marvel. Fox is much, much larger than Marvel and as I've said, production on most of Fox's films is very, very, very different. As such, don't make the comparison.
While they do have a couple disappointments, that's pretty much inevitable once you make a certain number of films. But the fact that they've relased 12 superhero films thus far without a single one receiving a rotten rating is pretty much unprecedented as far as I'm aware. Not to mention being able to make a film about a C-lister such as Ant-Man that handily outgrosses films based on an A-listers such as Wolverine, Batman and FF.
MCU is very impressive, it's why we all love it. Some films are disappointing, most are very good though if not unnecessary. Iron Man II, though, I'm surprised that Metacritic has a more accurate rating than Rotten Tomatoes.
