Days of Future Past Should DOFP be used to reboot the X-Men franchise?

[Lightning Strykez!]

You're right on point with this. The Avengers opened their eyes. The M'Kraan Crystal, The Starjammers, Shi'ar, The Ruby of Cyttorak, Mr. Sinister, Madeline Pryor, The Four Horsemen, Apocalypse and The Eternals...

Its all a possibility now.

Agreed. The sky is truly the limit now after what Marvel Studios has accomplished and introduced to the casual moviegoer. And you best believe that this time travel element in DOFP is DEFINITELY inspired by it. I think FOX is wising up and finally getting out of its own way. We'll see...

 

[Naji Assan]

I'm not joking in the least bit.

I hate that crap in the comics, and if it's included in the movies, then this franchise is no longer something worth me following.

So you want zero space exploration in this franchise? How do you expect them to do Apocalypse? Or do you dislike him too?

 

[psylockolussus]

I wouldn't mind a space exploration, X-Men are a lot of things and as long as its done well.

Maybe in the reboot, we could finally get an Asteriod M.

And since several people already brought this up. I don't want a "Marvel Studios" take in the reboot. Most of their films are quite safe and I prefer Fox treatment to their main villains.

 

[def28]

...but Marvel=$$$$$. Fox should take note into want can make the most box office profit.

Right Psylockolossus?

 

[psylockolussus]

Yeah like marketing and not focusing on spin-offs.

Fox should focus on X-Men and Fantastic Four, not some like property like Deadpool or X-Force who wouldn't even bank $100 million in U.S. alone.

 

[psylockolussus]

...but Marvel=$$$$$. Fox should take note into want can make the most box office profit.

Right Psylockolossus?

LOL why did you change your question?

 

[def28]

LOL why did you change your question?

Read your post wrong. Changed it quick to prove a point

 

[psylockolussus]

Read your post wrong. Changed it quick to prove a point

How snappy of you.

But sorry, I have no time to deal with that.

 

[def28]

All good. I figured we all know Fox shouldn't just indulge to what we personally think would make the most money and just focus on the story telling.

 

[psylockolussus]

Does story-telling even matters to you? LOL. As long as it has action like the Transformers movie, you'd be content! LOL

just kidding.

 

[def28]

Does story-telling even matters to you? LOL. As long as it has action like the Transformers movie, you'd be content! LOL

just kidding.

Set pieces and women of Transformers with the story level of Dark Knight and I would have the perfect comic flick!

 

[psylockolussus]

Not surprising since you already said that X3/Blade are better than X1 and Kick-Ass 2 is as good as Gravity.

 

[def28]

...yet again you avoid the call out by switching the subject (plus twisting my views on films).

 

[X-Maniac]

Hasn't been less than desirable for me. What you call a "Carrie" Phoenix, I call a much more welcome interpretation of the character than clones and space goddesses and aliens and crystals.

And if the future of X-Men resembles Marvel Studios products, I will be less than impressed. I admittedly haven't seen every Marvel Studios film, but the ones that I have seen are the generic, bland, "pew pew" stories that completely lack any sort of substance. Nice fun for a couple hours, but instantly forgotten the moment I walk out of the theater. NOT what I want for the X-Men films.

So if that's the future of the X-Men movies... well, I'll stick with "Carrie" Phoenix and adamantium bullets.

Your reply wasn't directed at me, but I want to respond.

While I am okay with the depiction of Phoenix in X3, it was also lacking in many regards.

If they'd added a firebird effect at some point (like her 'rebirth' at the lake), it would have helped immensely.

But it doesn't quite jive that Jean's other persona had already called itself Phoenix, before Jean 'died'. This is where it becomes obvious that the film should have been a two-parter (as Singer envisaged). Phoenix would make more sense as a name adopted by Jean, or given to her by Magneto or by the X-Men or by the government or by the newspapers, after she reappeared and caused various mysterious events and phenomena across the world (with a visible firebird being seen by the public).

I also don't think people should be too keen to dismiss the more fantastical elements from the comics. A few years ago, some people on here were saying we'd never see giant robots or time travel in this series. Well, guess what...

There is a way to do these things. Singer is good at making the more outlandish aspects seem believable (though the franchise is sometimes a little too restrained).

Also, it's possible to have spectacle and epic scale as well as substance. Just because Marvel Studios movies are light on substance, it doesn't mean that's the only way it can work.

 

[Naji Assan]

Deadpool or X-Force wouldn't even bank $100 million in U.S. alone.

And this estimate is based on what?

Question 2, if they make 400 - 500 million worldwide, what explanation will you have then? No "OT cast", no Hugh Jackman Wolverine, the words "X-Men" not even in the title...how could it be?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

So you want zero space exploration in this franchise? How do you expect them to do Apocalypse? Or do you dislike him too?

You are correct. I want zero space travel in this franchise. If I could "reboot" the comics and wipe out all space travel in the comics, I would.

How do I expect them to do Apocalypse? I honestly couldn't care less if we ever get Apocalypse. I have no hype or anticipation for an Apocalypse film.

I've said it a thousand times if I've said it once, I would be quite content if no more X-Men movies were ever made after X-Men: Days Of Future Past. I don't have an entitlement complex where I think that every comic run should be adapted into film, and that these movies should be made from here until the end of time. Things come to an end, and I have no issue with watching these movies come to an end.

They won't, so if they aren't going to end, I'd like to see this franchise continue with dignity and integrity. I don't need to see the convoluted idiocy of the comics make its way into the movies.

Your reply wasn't directed at me, but I want to respond.

While I am okay with the depiction of Phoenix in X3, it was also lacking in many regards.

If they'd added a firebird effect at some point (like her 'rebirth' at the lake), it would have helped immensely.

But it doesn't quite jive that Jean's other persona had already called itself Phoenix, before Jean 'died'. This is where it becomes obvious that the film should have been a two-parter (as Singer envisaged). Phoenix would make more sense as a name adopted by Jean, or given to her by Magneto or by the X-Men or by the government or by the newspapers, after she reappeared and caused various mysterious events and phenomena across the world (with a visible firebird being seen by the public).

I also don't think people should be too keen to dismiss the more fantastical elements from the comics. A few years ago, some people on here were saying we'd never see giant robots or time travel in this series. Well, guess what...

There is a way to do these things. Singer is good at making the more outlandish aspects seem believable (though the franchise is sometimes a little too restrained).

Also, it's possible to have spectacle and epic scale as well as substance. Just because Marvel Studios movies are light on substance, it doesn't mean that's the only way it can work.

I'm not saying we won't ever see certain things. I'm saying I don't -want- to see certain things.

If there are aspects that I do not like in the comics, why would I want to see them in the movies? There are certain aspects of the comics that I simply don't like and I cringe over everytime they are implemented.

 

[Mr.M]

You're right on point with this. The Avengers opened their eyes. The M'Kraan Crystal, The Starjammers, Shi'ar, The Ruby of Cyttorak, Mr. Sinister, Madeline Pryor, The Four Horsemen, Apocalypse and The Eternals...

Its all a possibility now.

I don't think we get those things in this Singerverse. Or those elements will be retooled and watered down to fit that mold, almost like what people thought of with the Nolanverse, where Superman can't just pop in on a whim without undermining the entire concept. Obviously there is enough sci-fi in X-Men to strike the balance, but once you start going space and cosmic stuff, you lose that suspension of belief. Once you bring in the Fantastic Four, then you have a platform for that, and I believe that is a massive priority for Fox's expanded universe.

That said, Singer covered the core of what X-Men is about. Magneto vs Xavier. Humans vs mutants. All grounded in a very real, revisionist history type of world. We don't need to see that story told over and over again. And that story has been told almost flawlessly in my book, when you get down to the core of what X-Men is about. It's been there done that.

So what is the reboot going to do differently? I don't need to see the gimmicky comic book elements and stories lacking substance in the vein of the MCU. But I don't want to explore the same themes that Singer did on a surface level either. You HAVE to do something different. Frankly, it can't be all about Xavier vs Magneto again. DoFP closes the book on that. And frankly, I think the core X-Men need a break and I give Magneto/Xavier/Logan a long rest after this flick, and Wolverine 3.

Now I'm all for a more Summers oriented X-series, with Jean/Cyke at the forefront. Magneto/Xavier/Wolverine becoming auxilliary characters that support the ensemble. But I don't think there is a huge demand from the GA to see that story imminently, but in due course perhaps.

 

[Cherry]

Now I'm all for a more Summers oriented X-series, with Jean/Cyke at the forefront. Magneto/Xavier/Wolverine becoming auxilliary characters that support the ensemble. But I don't think there is a huge demand from the GA to see that story imminently, but in due course perhaps.

We can only dream.

 

[SuperT]

Yeah like marketing and not focusing on spin-offs.

You do realize Marvel Studio's entire business model is based around making individual solo movies that lead up to big event movies, right?

Do another, smaller X-Men proper movie, Wolverine solo run, throw in Deadpool and X-Force then lead up to another crossover event movie. That's the exact model Fox needs to take with their X-Men universe.

 

[Mr.M]

You do realize Marvel Studio's entire business model is based around making individual solo movies that lead up to big event movies, right?

Do another, smaller X-Men proper movie, Wolverine solo run, throw in Deadpool and X-Force then lead up to another crossover event movie. That's the exact model Fox needs to take with their X-Men universe.

Which may have been what Singer was referring to with his "Marvel mash-up" project that would follow additional spinoffs. Whether there are plans to bring in the FF eventually is anyone's guess. But even if that's not the case, Singer came out and said that the X-Universe is big enough to sustain an entire cinematic universe of sorts. It can be done with or without Fantastic Four or MCU connections. I think it is the right approach.

I'd love to see McAvoy and Fassebender continue to play these characters for the next 20-30 years. But you wouldn't have to do a movie every two or three years with them. You can fill that time in between with some spinoffs, before coming back to an event X-Men movie every 4-5 years. I think that's the model big actors will tend to follow in this century of Hollywood. Take the time to do those independent films that garner critical acclaim, but have that one character/franchise to come back to for a steady paycheck (see Johnny Depp). That's the film that has to do a billion plus at the box office. But it's darn near impossible to produce billion dollar films every 2-3 years, unless you are a Harry Potter type series, and there is only one Harry Potter. No other franchise will come close to duplicating that any time soon.

 

[Angamb]

really solid post (posts)

Thats the route to go.

McAvoy, Fassbender and co. can play these roles in a long run, without doing a movie every three years, this way they will get older too and will look more realistic to see them in other decades.

And this way, we can get other characters and actors in the meantime, including OT cast, XForce, Wolverine 3 and more.

 

[SuperT]

Either way - they are going to have to start giving us more than just one X-Men team movie every year. They are at least going to have to bump it up to two a year if they are serious about expanding the universe.

Not all the movies need to be large scale movies either. If they are smart, they'll make some of the spin-off titles smaller like they did with The Wolverine to maximize profit.

Titles like X-Factor Investigations, Deadpool or a Gambit solo run could work, and probably benefit, as smaller productions.

 

[Angamb]

for sure. There are many things that can be done with budgets around 90 to 100 million.

Its about a GOOD story and a great supporting cast. Then if they market them well, they will be decent success.

There are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many movies on the whole history that have worked without an "EPIC concep, scope" and all of that.

 

[Mr.M]

Either way - they are going to have to start giving us more than just one X-Men team movie every year. They are at least going to have to bump it up to two a year if they are serious about expanding the universe.

Not all the movies need to be large scale movies either. If they are smart, they'll make some of the spin-off titles smaller like they did with The Wolverine to maximize profit.

Titles like X-Factor Investigations, Deadpool or a Gambit solo run could work, and probably benefit, as smaller productions.

I think one movie a year is fine. Yeah you can do two, but they have to be radically different, yet the payoff will be to eventually interconnect everything, which isn't always feasible. It's tricky trying to maximize profits without oversaturating. Do we need an X-Men Origins: (Insert Mutant) for every character? Absolutely not. What about a Deadpool film? Deadpool can play off the X-Force. If you throw him into X-Force, you don't need the Deadpool movie... unless the popularity of the character just blows up to such a degree and there are stories worth telling with a charismatic lead. The source material is there, but how will the casual audience react? That's not to say Deadpool can't appear in other films (ask Ryan Renold's ex-wife), but a spinoff would mean the popularity of the character is now on Wolverine level, which he isn't outside the comics.

That's just one example. What other marketable solo spinoffs do you have? A lot of them are just X-Men variations, or X-Men "lite". That's not gonna fly with the GA. You need to expand the existing mythos of characters that people care about. Jumping into obscure comic book titles is not the answer. Let's see what GotG does next year, but Marvel has a cushion and can gamble a bit now that they have some capital.

 

[Angamb]

was Thor as popular on general audience as Wolverine?

No, yet Marvel has done two movies already doing more than 400 millions, in Thor 2 case, 500m and counting.

The "this character isnt popular" "rule" is not a make or break thing anymore. There are MANY factors why movies work and why they dont work.

If Marvel can do movies about Ironman, Cap, and Thor, Fox can EASILY do the same with a few more X-Men characters. Some fans dont want that, ok, but that doesnt mean Fox cant do it and do it successfully.