• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Reality Check(Budget vs. Profit)

danoyse said:

i see it and i don't see these worst reviews of the year your talking about. :) hey w/e you say to help your argument i suppose. :o

Besides most big name critics loved it.

danoyse said:
And Pirates was the first movie to stay at #1 for 3 weeks in 5 years. Hardly defeat. Even Superman had to fight off "Devil Wears Prada."

Never underestimate the chick flicks.

hardly a defeat? ok.

BTW
come on, do you honestly believe that if X3 couldn't have stayed #1 for 3 weeks if it hadn't done some of the things that upset fans and stopped them from returning?
 
danoyse said:
Obviously you don't know how to handle a discussion. You make statements and take offense whenever some disagrees with them...mainly by telling them we're either proving you right or that we somehow didn't *understand* your statement.

Correction. I take offense when someone either intentionally or consistently distorts statements made be me. You have done this in numerous conversations we have had. Maybe you have not intentionally done these things but, how do you expect me to react? Do you want me to repost all the statements I made that you distorted in previous posts to prove this to you?

danoyse said:
Don't make such bold statements without solid facts to back them up. Otherwise, expect a rebuke. Not trying to bash you, just pointing out that this is a discussion board.

By the way, I never got the impression you were trying to bash me. But, I think you have gone out of your way to overanalyze some of my commentaries.

danoyse said:
And for the record, your quote said: "The ironic thing is two of the things I criticized Fox for(9 and 10) may have saved X3 from being a huge domestic flop."
danoyse said:

"May have saved" indicates that something wasn't saved. You're claiming you said: "The above quote says X3 was saved from being a huge domestic flop. I never said it was a domestic flop!!!"

See the difference? .


For the record "may" in my "May have saved" quote suggests something could or could not have been saved. The above statement you quoted was somewhat rhetorical so your argument is not strong. Ultimately, the reason I used the word may in that sentence you quoted was because I can not be 100% positive that the things I mentioned saved X3 from being a domestic flop. However, something did save it.

Until you can produce a quote that proves I said X3 was a domestic flop there is no reason to continue discussing this.

danoyse said:
Still your opinion. Not a fact.


Of course it is my opinion. However, my opinion is well grounded on statistics.


danoyse said:
That's not true. "The DaVinci Code" is highly controversial best-selling novel with over 60 million copies in print, has been translated into 44 languages, and is believed to be the 8th best-selling novel of all time. The movie adaptation--which was just as controversial, as many of it's filming locations were marred by religious protesters. It had a $77 million opening weekend--the 2nd highest among adult-geared films, and the 13th highest opening weekend ever. Overseas, it grossed more than "Star Wars Episode III" did in it's opening weekend. It was just as eagerly hyped an anticipated as X3.

Didn't you read what I said? I did not say X3 had no competition. I said it almost had no competition. DaVinci Code didn't give X3 much competition domestically. X3 had that amazing opening weekend while the DaVinci Code had a big dropoff during the same weekend due to the critic reviews that hurt it.


danoyse said:
But that doesn't mean a movie that makes $200 million isn't impressive. Does that mean "Cars" and "The DaVinci Code" are haven't had impressive takes?

I said breaking 200 million is not that impressive anymore considering how often it happens and is definitely not impressive for films whose budgets settle around 200 million domestically. Breaking that number was impressive about 5 years ago. However, I'm glad you mentioned Cars and The Davinci Code so I can compare these two movies domestic profit percentages to X3's:

Budget Domestic Gross Profit Percentage
Cars 120 mil 232 mil 93.3%
Davinci Code 125 mil 215 mil 72%
X3 210 mil 233 mil 10.9%

Which one of these films do you think was the least profitable domestically?(Not by a small margin but, by a freaking landslide.)

danoyse said:
Fox wasn't looking to make $300 off the domestic run of X3...I'm sure they would have loved it, but like every other studio, counted in DVD and TV revenue to make a serious profit--which at this rate they will.

Oh really. So you are telling me all studios that spend huge quantities of money on films are not concerned with profit percentage statistics?

If that was true then why do only a few companies spend over 200 million for a budget each year?

If that was true then why has Tom Rothman decided to change his mind on making anymore X-Men films in the future.

http://www.hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=4537


It's kind of convenient he came to this decision a week after X3's domestic gross basically died at 233 million with a weak profit percentage. What sparked Tom to suddenly come to this conclusion when he could have made this decision a few months back or a few years from now.

Remember this decision came after he said there would be future X-Men films in January.

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/01/fox_confirms_xmen_4.html




danoyse said:
It wasn't weak. You said "MI3 was doomed because of Tom Cruise's antics." You didn't refer to which of Tom's antics doomed the film. His most famous antic...which has been spoofed in another movie already, happened before "War of the Worlds," which, and this is a fact, is his highest grossing film. .

Like I said before I was not referring to Tom Cruisess stupid antic on Oprah Winfrey. How could a trivial thing that hurt or help him at the box office. Most of my friends who saw War of the Worlds in the theaters did not know about his antic until weeks after the film was released. On the other hand the Brooke Shields incident was not forgotten and Tom may never be able to get over it. The feminist group N.O.W. has been bashing Tom for over 6 months now and I doubt they will let up.

danoyse said:
MI3 was *doomed* not just because of Cruise, but also because it had been 6 years since the last movie, and not a lot of people liked the first two.

I don’t buy this argument. MI2 came out 4 years after Mission Impossible(1996) and was Tom Cruises highest grossing film until War of the Worlds. If a sequel can outgross it predecessor released 4 years earlier than I think it is very possible for a sequel released 6 later to be successful.



danoyse said:
And DaVinci, and Pirates...


Out of the worst reviewed movie list for the year X3 has the worst domestic profit percentage.



danoyse said:
Again, you're touting this number like Fox rolls down the curtain as soon as the movie leaves theaters domestically. The actual profit for the studio would be weak if that were the case...but you're not counting in the foreign markets, which have it now at $438 million, with openings in China and Japan to come, then DVD, then TV revenue.

We already covered this many posts before in this thread or another thread. I gave you a list of high budget films that not only had weak domestic profit percentage but, also failed to generate sequels. Another thing these films had in common was favorable worldwide grosses. If what you are saying is true why weren’t sequels made for Van Helsing, Hulk, Godzilla, Lost in Space, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? All of these films made money off of toys, video games, tv revenue, and DVD sales.


danoyse said:
Regardless of what happened in that second weekend, that huge opening weekend and the final domestic gross in the
danoyse said:
US still put it in a good place to keep making money when you total all of the outlets in.


Yes, for the short time being X3 will continue making some money. What about the future of X-Men? Oh yeah. I forgot. Rothman just announced a few days ago that there probably won’t be anymore X-Men movies. I knew not signing Singer to direct X3 and X4 at the same time would come back to bite Fox and Rothman in the butt.






danoyse said:
Look, I am an Alien fan. I saw "Alien" as a kid and still think it's the scariest sci-fi film ever made. I saw "Aliens" in the theater twice, and think it's one of the only sequels to ever outdo it's predecessor.

The series didn’t have to end this way.

danoyse said:
But I always felt the story ended at "Aliens". If the third one had been any good, maybe I'd still want another one. But I hated the 4th film, and never even saw AVP. Series ended for me in 1986, and it did for a lot of the original fans as well.

I hated X3 and X4. But, that’s what happens when the executives of a studio abuse a classic franchise through hiring hack writers, cutting budgets, and sticking with ridiculous release dates to release sequels.



danoyse said:
Wait a minute...X3's budget is quoted at $210 million, but you've been calling it's $233 million domestic take a disappointment. Singer's SR budget is quoted as $204 million, and you're saying it's $182 million domestic take is "a disappointment, but not as great as people think." .
danoyse said:


So why is X3's "disappointment" not as great as people think?


This is one time that I miss communicated some information to you. I meant to write “but not as bad as people think”. Sorry for the miss communication.


danoyse said:
Really? I don't see them racing towards a Superman sequel right now.

What would be the point in doing that when a studio can take their time making a sequel? WB is preparing for the next Batman movie so of course a Superman sequel is an after thought at this moment.




danoyse said:
No, they waited until it became a surprise hit to finally realize his performance was brilliant.

I totally disagree with you again. Who was this film a surprise hit for? Disney? No movie company just randomly goes through the process of spending around 150 million on a film, signing an A-list actor, and expects their film to do mediocre domestically and foreign. Disney invested a lot into Pirates because they were convinced it would be a hit before they started filming.
 
danoyse said:
Well, he was one of Matthew Vaughn's casting choices. Weren't you saying before that Vaughn leaving was one of the things Fox did "wrong" with this film? .
"20th century Fox did almost everything wrong with the production of this film:
4. Changing directors 2 and a half months before filming."



I said Fox forcing him to leave having him leave 3 months before filming began would only make things worse.(Things were already not looking to good and Ratner failed to correct any mistakes Vaughn made.). I never expressed my feelings on Fox hiring Mathew Vaughn in the first place. Matthew Obviously was not the best person to direct X3(Vinnie Jones). But, Fox had already interviewed Joss Whedon(One of the top candidates for the job.) and for some refused to sign a director who has been developing X-Men comics!!!! I guess I should expand that list I made previously about all the stupid things did with the production of X3.



danoyse said:
So it's only acceptable when people demand bigger roles in movies you like?

I don’t know where this idea came from. I had faith in X3 despite all the negativity surrounding it until the night that I saw it.

I have no problem with actors and actresses demanding bigger roles if the expansion makes the movie in a sequel more interesting. That did not work for X3 because characters roles were expanded at the expense of other character roles.

Why not recast Halle Berry instead of giving in to her demands? I don’t have a single acquaintance or friend who liked the 3 X-Men movies because of Halle’s acting. All my friends agree that she was one-dimensional in X3.


danoyse said:
It's kicking everyone's butt domestically and overseas. How is that a specific knock against only X3?
danoyse said:

Your point? When was X3 ever supposed to be more succesful than POTC?


Pirates and X-Men 3 had comparable budgets. Pirates cost 225million and X3 cost 210 million to make. Yet, the profit percentage discrepancy between these films is astonishing. It merely, shows that one studio company put forth the time and effort to make a kick butt film the American general audience would enjoy and one that failed to accomplish these feats with a similar budget.




danoyse said:
And it made a ton of money on it's opening 4-day weekend. SR opening a holiday weekend and wasn't so lucky. POTC had a record-breaking opening weekend. Again, what's the point?

X3 had an incredible opening weekend like POTC2 and yet it’s domestic profit percentage is amazingly 40% percentage points less than POTC2 and Pirates could easily make another 30 to 40 million domestically.

On the other hand Superman’s failure is not a surprise. Most high budget films which open with unspectacular box office results fail to achieve favorable domestic profit percentages. Batman Begins was one of the exceptions.


danoyse said:
What? Pirates was the 2nd film to a movie that was not only a surprise hit, but actually outgrossed X2 by nearly $100 million the year it was released. It developed a huge fanbase, and tracking better than all of the other summer movies before X3 was even released.

Thank you for mentioning this. If the Pirates fanbase was that much larger than X-Men then why would Fox spend a comparable amount of money on X3 knowing it couldn’t compete with Pirates?

danoyse said:
Everyone knew POTC was going to be the big movie this summer.

This is completely subjective. Check out the following links .

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=12519


http://www.pmmediareview.com/archives/2006/03/first_look_2006.aspx


I guess there were many critics who thought Superman and X3 could have been bigger films than Pirates.

danoyse said:
OK, that is not even remotely true. Have you been in a supermarket lately? Captain Jack is on everything from cereal boxes to M&Ms. There's a Pirates contest going on McDonalds. They have video games, toys, and there are already school supplies and Halloween costumes at the Disney Store. Even the dolls of Mickey and Minnie are dressed like Pirates right now.

It depends on how much money it costs to market your movies through these resources. Fox had to have spent a fortune marketing X3 during the NBA playoffs. I saw most of the games and the majority of the commercial breaks had X3 previews.


danoyse said:
This is DISNEY. Do you honestly think they aren't going to promote their big movies as much or more as any other studio.

If I’m a businessman and I know my competitor is releasing a vastly inferior product why would I need to spend an extraordinary amount of money on marketing? I don’t think Disney spent anything remotely close to the money Fox spent marketing X3.

danoyse said:
X3 had good marketing campaign--much better than Superman's. X3 had a teaser full of clips out by December, a full trailer premiered during one of Fox's highest rated shows ("24"), they ran ads during their other high-rated shows like "American Idol," and "House," ran a full 7-minute preview before the series finale of "That 70s Show" and even had Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romijn make an appearance on AI to plug the movie.

X3 had a marketing campaign that resulted in impressive domestic box office results for 1 weekend and this same marketing strategy hurt the film soon after because too much money was spent on marketing. More money should have been spent on completing the film.

danoyse said:
THAT is how you promote your movie. The WB didn't utilize any of that for SR.

I agree that Fox did a better job of promoting X3 than the WB did for Superman. However, Fox still wasted money that could have been spent elsewhere.


danoyse said:
Not at all. .


Another subjective comment.


danoyse said:
You really need to learn how to be more polite when responding. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they've lost their minds or need to improve reasoning skills. You're the one making the bold statements without anything valid backing them up...don't be so surprised every time you get a response that doesn't agree.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with what I say. I have a problem with people who to distort my commentaries. You have said a number of times that I said that X3 was a domestic flop. That is not true and you don’t have any evidence to back up your claims. All you have is that one quote where you tried to suggest that I said X3 was a domestic flop and your argument does not hold up.

danoyse said:
You didn't like X3. We get it. But you're twisting around numbers to back up your point that don't add up or make any sense.

Now you are making bold statements. Could you please explain to me how my numbers don’t make sense?

danoyse said:
You could just post that you don't like the movie, instead of making crazy box office statements. Just a suggestion.

What is wrong with my profit percentage statistics? Could you show me statistics that conflict with the ones I posted? I’ve been waiting for a counter statistical analysis for a while now.
 
Just to clarify, Fox made their decision not to continue with the franchise long before X3 was released. Remember the fuss on the boards after Hugh Jackman spoke at ShoWest in February. He was acting as a spokesman for Fox (with Tom Rothman in the audience).

We actually agree on one thing - the profit margin on X3 isn't big enough to justify an equally expensive sequel.

Where we disagree is that Fox were disappointed with X3's box office performance. I think it has performed as expected ie in line with X2. After the Friday opening they may have briefly had hopes that it would do better, but as soon as the Saturday estimates came in, they knew better.

The decision not to continue was probably made as soon as they received the costings for X3 - even before they started shooting. Of course, by that stage they'd already signed Jackman for the Wolverine spinoff so they had a more cost-effective way forward.
 
^Interesting.

Im really relieved this franchise is over, hopefully it will be touched up again in a decade or 2............:(

NOT BY FOX!!!! :)
 
Celestial said:
Just to clarify, Fox made their decision not to continue with the franchise long before X3 was released. Remember the fuss on the boards after Hugh Jackman spoke at ShoWest in February. He was acting as a spokesman for Fox (with Tom Rothman in the audience).

We actually agree on one thing - the profit margin on X3 isn't big enough to justify an equally expensive sequel.

Where we disagree is that Fox were disappointed with X3's box office performance. I think it has performed as expected ie in line with X2. After the Friday opening they may have briefly had hopes that it would do better, but as soon as the Saturday estimates came in, they knew better.

The decision not to continue was probably made as soon as they received the costings for X3 - even before they started shooting. Of course, by that stage they'd already signed Jackman for the Wolverine spinoff so they had a more cost-effective way forward.

Exactly. And the studio knew before X3 was released that they would be spending even more on further sequels, which is why they have been so adamant from the beginning that X3 would be the last, and they would be continuing with smaller-budgeted spinoffs instead of another big-budget sequel.

It's not like a Spiderman or Superman situation where you've got 1 major superhero, it's a big ensemble cast, and the bigger it gets the more it's going to cost just to get the cast back.

The profit is smaller not because the movie was a flop, but because they spent more making it. Box office wise, it's the highest grossing of the 3 films. But to continue to pour even more money into bigger sequels will stop making money for the studio and kill the franchise.
 
danoyse said:
Exactly. And the studio knew before X3 was released that they would be spending even more on further sequels, which is why they have been so adamant from the beginning that X3 would be the last, and they would be continuing with smaller-budgeted spinoffs instead of another big-budget sequel.

If this was true then why did Tom Rothman talk about making more X-Men movies in January.



danoyse said:
It's not like a Spiderman or Superman situation where you've got 1 major superhero, it's a big ensemble cast, and the bigger it gets the more it's going to cost just to get the cast back.

You're the the one who said Fox and other movie companies could be satisfied with making high budget films with favorable world wide gross inspite of receiving weak domestic profit percentages. So based on your previous statements Fox should be gung-ho on signing the same cast and increasing their budget for a couple more X-Men films. Therefore, you have contradicted yourself.

If Fox wanted to make 6 to 9 X-Men movies they should have signed a bunch of unknown actors and actresses at the beginning of the series so they wouldn't have to pay outrageous salaries for future films.

danoyse said:
The profit is smaller not because the movie was a flop, but because they spent more making it.


Since when does spending more money on a sequel guarantee a lower domestic profit percentage.

Here are some more statistics for you.

Budget Domestic gross Profit percentage

Shrek1 60 million 267 million 345%

Shrek2 70 million 441 million 530%

The Bourne Identity 60 million 120 million 100%

The Bourne Supremacy 75 million 176 million 135%


This is proof that your theory does not apply to all franchises.

danoyse said:
The profit is smaller not because the movie was a flop, but because they spent more making it.

I know you are referring to me again with your flop statement but, we all know that you can't prove I said this. Also, your idea of X3's profit being smaller is an understatement. It's domestic profit percentage was not even remotely close to the profit percentages of the two previous movies.

Profit percentage
X1 109%
X2 95%
X3 10.9%


danoyse said:
Box office wise, it's the highest grossing of the 3 films.

Box office wise it's has the worst domestic profit percentage of the 3 films.

danoyse said:
But to continue to pour even more money into bigger sequels will stop making money for the studio and kill the franchise.

You contradicted yourself again.
 
Theweepeople said:
If this was true then why did Tom Rothman talk about making more X-Men movies in January.
Please could you post the link again - I don't want to trawl through pages to find it.

I don't remember him saying anything too definitive. My guess would be that he was hedging until they had their marketing strategy in place.
 
Celestial said:
Please could you post the link again - I don't want to trawl through pages to find it.

I don't remember him saying anything too definitive. My guess would be that he was hedging until they had their marketing strategy in place.

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/01/fox_confirms_xmen_4.html

I will admit Tom does not say anything too definitive but, he suggests that X3 won't be the last X-Men film and the posibility of another saga buy comparing this franchise to Lord of the Rings. My guess is this commentary is the result of him expecting X3 to perform much better than it did. Thereby, giving reason to start another X-Men saga in the future. The resulting domestic profit percentages of X3 must have put an end to that idea quickly.
 
Celestial said:
Lord of the Rings has only three parts.

Yes Lord of the Rings has 3 parts. The Hobbit book is the prelude to the Lord of the Rings books.
 
Theweepeople said:
Yes Lord of the Rings has 3 parts. The Hobbit book is the prelude to the Lord of the Rings books.

There's also the Silmarillon and even after Return of the King, you know there's still plenty of room for adventure.

Not to mention plenty of prequels. LOTR takes place in the Third and Fourth Ages. Certainly alot happened during the first 2 ages as well, just look at the master timeline put together by JRR Tolkien.

It's the same deal with X-Men. Only a fool would destroy a promising universe in 3 movies.
 
Theweepeople said:
If this was true then why did Tom Rothman talk about making more X-Men movies in January.

SPINOFFS.

It's over. This was intended to be the last one.

Did you read this? Narrows posted it earlier. This explains (with actual math), why, despite the sucess of X-Men 3, that Fox pulled the plug on the series.

http://www.hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=4537

It's all the reasons we've repeated over and over and over again...

-The sequels are getting more expensive. Spinoffs will cost less.

-The actors have gotten bigger (hence, need to be paid more) since X1. POTC had 3 actors to bring back. X-Men had 16.

It's an interesting read, and brings up some good points (pro and con) about Fox's decision to end the series, compared to Disney doing the double-sequel thing with POTC. Disney is also cutting down--they announced they were cutting their staff and the number of movies they plan the produce the same weekend POTC2 opened.

If Fox wanted to make 6 to 9 X-Men movies they should have signed a bunch of unknown actors and actresses at the beginning of the series so they wouldn't have to pay outrageous salaries for future films.

No actor in their right mind is going to sign up for a 6-9 movie series from the very beginning, because it will completely leave them out of any potential cut of the films' success, leave them stuck with sequels they may or may not want to do, and 6-9 movies? That would take years. A TV series, sure. But never a movie series.

And the actors were mostly unknown when they started in X1. Hugh Jackman had never done a film in the US before, Ian McKellen was pre-LOTR, and Halle was pre-Oscar.

Since when does spending more money on a sequel guarantee a lower domestic profit percentage.

Because the movies cost more.

Box office wise it's has the worst domestic profit percentage of the 3 films.

Which is why they're not doing any more sequels. Another movie will cost even more, and the studio will profit less.

Another factor that figures into sequels: audiences start to get tired of them. Even the best series do start to run down eventually. Stopping while you're ahead, and continuing smaller to continue to profit is a wise business move.
 
danoyse said:
Another factor that figures into sequels: audiences start to get tired of them. Even the best series do start to run down eventually. Stopping while you're ahead, and continuing smaller to continue to profit is a wise business move.

We have LOTR-ROTKand ROTS.

Next year we have POTC3 and SM-3.

People don't seem so tired :p.
 
gambitfire said:
We have LOTR-ROTKand ROTS.

LOTR is ONE story, broken into 3 parts. That's like saying people will get tired of Harry Potter, when it's a 7-part series.

Next year we have POTC3 and SM-3.

And they're both part 3s, same as X-Men this summer. Are there any solid plans for part 4s, other than actors saying they'd be willing do another one?
 
danoyse said:
LOTR is ONE story, broken into 3 parts. That's like saying people will get tired of Harry Potter, when it's a 7-part series.

Each Harry Potter movie has an ending. If it wanted too it could end here. There is no way in hell that would happen though. Besides X2 set-up for an X3 like HP set up for any other movie. As for X4 it kinda does set-up but then again it doesn't. It could done so if it had been done right. Which is what is being told to you.

danoyse said:
And they're both part 3s, same as X-Men this summer. Are there any solid plans for part 4s, other than actors saying they'd be willing do another one?

Ok so we'll have SM3 and POTC 3. They don't get tired if it's done right.

What's your point? My point is that X4 would be on the way if X3 wasn't a dissapointment for so many ppl. Ppl get tired when things get bad and pointless.
 
gambitfire said:
Each Harry Potter movie has an ending. If it wanted too it could end here. There is no way in hell that would happen though. Besides X2 set-up for an X3 like HP set up for any other movie. As for X4 it kinda does set-up but then again it doesn't. It could done so if it had been done right. Which is what is being told to you.

What? Are you even familiar with Harry Potter? It's a 7-part story. How do they end when Voldemort hasn't been defeated, the mystery about Harry's parents have been solved, and the kids haven't even finished Hogwarts? They're not individual stories. The last movie ended with Voldermort coming back--one of the last lines of the movie is "Everything is going to change now, isn't it?"

How do you end a movie there?

Ok so we'll have SM3 and POTC 3. They don't get tired if it's done right.

But that's still a THIRD movie. How many 4th movies have been just as successful as the previous 3 besides Harry Potter...which, as stated before, is a 7-part story?

What's your point? My point is that X4 would be on the way if X3 wasn't a dissapointment for so many ppl. Ppl get tired when things get bad and pointless.

No, X4 was never on the way because there was never a plan to make one.
 
danoyse said:
No, X4 was never on the way because there was never a plan to make one.

You said Disney had no plans of making future Pirates of the Caribbean films after the first one was initially released and look how that turned out.
 
Theweepeople said:
You said Disney had no plans of making future Pirates of the Caribbean films after the first one was initially released and look how that turned out.

They didn't plan a sequel to Pirates. Then Pirates made a lot of money, so they made two more. There is no set plan for a 4th, just some speculation amongst the cast in recent interviews.
 
danoyse said:
What? Are you even familiar with Harry Potter? It's a 7-part story. How do they end when Voldemort hasn't been defeated, the mystery about Harry's parents have been solved, and the kids haven't even finished Hogwarts? They're not individual stories. The last movie ended with Voldermort coming back--one of the last lines of the movie is "Everything is going to change now, isn't it?"

How do you end a movie there?

Like you would bringing back a character to life and letting the audience think what happens next. If the books and movie where not successful they wouldn't be doing it which is the point that is being stated.

danoyse said:
But that's still a THIRD movie. How many 4th movies have been just as successful as the previous 3 besides Harry Potter...which, as stated before, is a 7-part story? .

Not many 3rd movies leave things unresolved anyways so you can only expect a 4th based on success.

I don't see your point here anyways. Besides those 2 havn't come out so we can't say anything yet.

danoyse said:
No, X4 was never on the way because there was never a plan to make one.

No but there was speculation and FOX deffinetley would of gave it a go if it had the same succes as POTC2. Which is the point that is being stated here.


danoyse said:
They didn't plan a sequel to Pirates. Then Pirates made a lot of money, so they made two more. There is no set plan for a 4th, just some speculation amongst the cast in recent interviews.

Yes it supports the point that is being stated. This one is set to end in 3 though but SM3 on the other hand if successful enough could lead to a 4.

X-Men has the material up to a 7 just like harry potter it's just a matter of doing things right. They didn't so they killed it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,678
Messages
21,785,355
Members
45,620
Latest member
stevezorz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"