Singer nay or yah

[X-Maniac]

So because more people have seen a movie that means it is generally more liked? I'm sorry, but thats bull**** in a big way. Do you think the general audience think more of Fantastic Four than X1 Sin City because FF made more money? Do the general audience think more of Spiderman 1 than Spidey 2 because the first made more money?

Sorry to single you out but i just hate that excuse when people argue over the quality of one movie over another.

Oh and for the record i LOVED SR and hated X3, but that doesnt factor in to what i just said.

More people seeing a movie has to be seen as evidence of its popularity, and commercial success. It's not necessarily an indication of quality.

But of course it means it's more well-liked if more people went to see it!

 

[LastSunrise1981]

More people seeing a movie has to be seen as evidence of its popularity, and commercial success. It's not necessarily an indication of quality.

But of course it means it's more well-liked if more people went to see it!

So in other words, because Glitter was number one at the Box Office, it indicates that people liked it and was a resounding success?

Evidently people didn't enjoy X3 enough to keep it from losing to the Break-Up.

It seems the one movie that is just destroying the competition this year is POTC 2.

 

[X-Maniac]

So in other words, because Glitter was number one at the Box Office, it indicates that people liked it and was a resounding success?

Evidently people didn't enjoy X3 enough to keep it from losing to the Break-Up.

It seems the one movie that is just destroying the competition this year is POTC 2.

Was Litter.. I mean, Glitter.. a Box Office No 1?! Surely you jest...

I've not seen it, so I can't offer my personal view. But it's obvious that it, like Catwoman, was destroyed by poor pre-publicity.

Quite why Pirates is a runaway success, I'm not sure. But it does indicate some of what the public expect from a summer blockbuster - they want action, energy, fun, they want to be entertained, they are not necessarily looking for artistic depth or intellectual stimulation.

Some of that energy and entertainment value was in X3. Not much of it was in SR.

 

[danoyse]

So in other words, because Glitter was number one at the Box Office, it indicates that people liked it and was a resounding success?

"Glitter" opened at #11 on it's opening weekend with a whopping $2.4 million, so I would say people weren't crazy about it.

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2001&wknd=38&p=.htm

Evidently people didn't enjoy X3 enough to keep it from losing to the Break-Up.

You sure about that?

Currently, per Box Office Mojo's top domestic grossing films of the year:

#3: X-Men The Last Stand: $234,263,625
#12: The Break-Up: $118,611,950

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2006&p=.htm

It seems the one movie that is just destroying the competition this year is POTC 2.

POTC2 is just astounding what it's been doing at the box office.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Was Litter.. I mean, Glitter.. a Box Office No 1?! Surely you jest...

I've not seen it, so I can't offer my personal view. But it's obvious that it, like Catwoman, was destroyed by poor pre-publicity.

Quite why Pirates is a runaway success, I'm not sure. But it does indicate some of what the public expect from a summer blockbuster - they want action, energy, fun, they want to be entertained, they are not necessarily looking for artistic depth or intellectual stimulation.

Some of that energy and entertainment value was in X3. Not much of it was in SR.

Yep. Glitter was number one at the Box Office I'm afraid. But this was also due to 9/11 if I'm not mistaken or that may be another movie.

I think people just didn't understand Superman Returns. This isn't a knock on you or naything, but the people of America have short attention spans. Only a few seem to enjoy great movies with emotion and deeper meaning.

The rest of them just seem to want action, action, action, and more action. I think people went into Superman Returns expecting exactly that, and we disappointed at the result. Sure, it was long and sure it could've had a bit more thrills, but I loved it for what it was and will buy the DVD.

But seriously the only film this year that's destroying all the competition is POTC 2.

I think Saw III will definitely do great business too, considering how much Saw II was.

 

[X-Maniac]

I think people just didn't understand Superman Returns. This isn't a knock on you or naything, but the people of America have short attention spans. Only a few seem to enjoy great movies with emotion and deeper meaning.

I think it's more a case that not all movies are meant to be for arty-farty appreciation by auditoriums full of high-brow film aficionados with wild hair and with their spectacles balanced on the end of their nose, nodding sagely at each other over the production value of a certain scene.

Some movies are meant to be more entertaining, or just to be entertaining.
They aren't meant to be overly cerebral.

That's not how I view X-Men.. all three movies have more depth and quality than Pirates... but it's an example that maybe some films aren't meant to be for the intelligensia, or to be viewed in that fashion.

I mean, does every meal have to be a four-course meal at the most expensive restaurant in town, or can you sometimes just enjoy cheap junk-food like a hotdog or takeout?

In Box Office terms, X3 made a wise move, incorporating some of the 'summer blockbuster' energy and fun that is found in Pirates as well as continuing the deeper socio-political themes of the story (which is why the cure storyline was used - I have mixed views over that storyline, but nonetheless, each X-Men movie has shown a wider political prejudice at work - the registration act to control mutants, Stryker's attempt to eradicate mutants, and the cure that ends up being a weapon against mutants... the choice of including these as main themes being the reason that Jean Grey's unique inner turmoils have taken a backseat)

The rest of them just seem to want action, action, action, and more action. I think people went into Superman Returns expecting exactly that, and we disappointed at the result. Sure, it was long and sure it could've had a bit more thrills, but I loved it for what it was and will buy the DVD.

But seriously the only film this year that's destroying all the competition is POTC 2.

I think Saw III will definitely do great business too, considering how much Saw II was.

I certainly didn't see Superman wanting wall-to-wall action.

There were parts other than the lack of better action (interpersonal battles, rather than lifting inanimate objects) that left me dismayed.

It felt like a great idea poorly executed and badly edited. Things like the kid screaming when Lex threw his wig (what kid would scream like that over a hairpiece?), young Clark wearing glasses (why!??), young Clark doing super leaping (since when does Superman do super jumps!!??), Clark cruelly throwing the ball too far for his dog to fetch (is he that sadistic to his own dog?), the scene with the dog having eaten its companion (yuk - and what purpose did it serve, what was with the anti-dog sentiment in this film!?), Lex's plan (for real estate no one would ever want!), the vague history (Lois's memory or non-memory of having slept with Superman - which is it?), the whole issue of the kid (she must have met and slept with Richard quickly enough after sleeping with Superman for Richard to believe he was the father of the child!), the poor security at the Fortress of Solitude (protected only by a snowstorm!? WTF!?)... and the list goes on. The film is riddled with inconsistencies, with some things done purely for effect (the screaming kid, the throwing of the ball), and no one has yet managed to explain them all.

But I'm sure what put off the mainstream audience were trailers that did not appear to show gripping action like a super-showdown or a new villain. Lex has been done to death in the previous movies and done to death again in Smallville. Give us something new! (Dark Knight had better watch out when it recycles the Joker).

What I wanted from Superman was better editing (remove some of the crap I mentioned above, insert the Krypton exploration scene), some one-on-one action (new supervillain, with a superpowered showdown), and a better story structure. Bryan has a habit of ignoring the global effects of his characters' actions - Superman's absence and return, and the fact it led to the freedom of Lex Luthor, was never properly explored. Similarly, in X1 and X2, you never get a properly explored sense of the effect of events on the world (like the effect of Dark Cerebro when it targeted mutants and then humans.. how many people were affected, injured, killed?). Bryan's approach is very 'intimate' and that may suit some viewers, but when these people do things that have global impact, surely we need to see that impact...

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I think it's more a case that not all movies are meant to be for arty-farty appreciation by auditoriums full of high-brow film aficionados with wild hair and with their spectacles balanced on the end of their nose, nodding sagely at each other over the production value of a certain scene.

Some movies are meant to be more entertaining, or just to be entertaining.
They aren't meant to be overly cerebral.

That's not how I view X-Men.. all three movies have more depth and quality than Pirates... but it's an example that maybe some films aren't meant to be for the intelligensia, or to be viewed in that fashion.

I mean, does every meal have to be a four-course meal at the most expensive restaurant in town, or can you sometimes just enjoy cheap junk-food like a hotdog or takeout?

In Box Office terms, X3 made a wise move, incorporating some of the 'summer blockbuster' energy and fun that is found in Pirates as well as continuing the deeper socio-political themes of the story (which is why the cure storyline was used - I have mixed views over that storyline, but nonetheless, each X-Men movie has shown a wider political prejudice at work - the registration act to control mutants, Stryker's attempt to eradicate mutants, and the cure that ends up being a weapon against mutants... the choice of including these as main themes being the reason that Jean Grey's unique inner turmoils have taken a backseat)



I certainly didn't see Superman wanting wall-to-wall action.

There were parts other than the lack of better action (interpersonal battles, rather than lifting inanimate objects) that left me dismayed.

It felt like a great idea poorly executed and badly edited. Things like the kid screaming when Lex threw his wig (what kid would scream like that over a hairpiece?), young Clark wearing glasses (why!??), young Clark doing super leaping (since when does Superman do super jumps!!??), Clark cruelly throwing the ball too far for his dog to fetch (is he that sadistic to his own dog?), the scene with the dog having eaten its companion (yuk - and what purpose did it serve, what was with the anti-dog sentiment in this film!?), Lex's plan (for real estate no one would ever want!), the vague history (Lois's memory or non-memory of having slept with Superman - which is it?), the whole issue of the kid (she must have met and slept with Richard quickly enough after sleeping with Superman for Richard to believe he was the father of the child!), the poor security at the Fortress of Solitude (protected only by a snowstorm!? WTF!?)... and the list goes on. The film is riddled with inconsistencies, with some things done purely for effect (the screaming kid, the throwing of the ball), and no one has yet managed to explain them all.

But I'm sure what put off the mainstream audience were trailers that did not appear to show gripping action like a super-showdown or a new villain. Lex has been done to death in the previous movies and done to death again in Smallville. Give us something new! (Dark Knight had better watch out when it recycles the Joker).

What I wanted from Superman was better editing (remove some of the crap I mentioned above, insert the Krypton exploration scene), some one-on-one action (new supervillain, with a superpowered showdown), and a better story structure. Bryan has a habit of ignoring the global effects of his characters' actions - Superman's absence and return, and the fact it led to the freedom of Lex Luthor, was never properly explored. Similarly, in X1 and X2, you never get a properly explored sense of the effect of events on the world (like the effect of Dark Cerebro when it targeted mutants and then humans.. how many people were affected, injured, killed?). Bryan's approach is very 'intimate' and that may suit some viewers, but when these people do things that have global impact, surely we need to see that impact...

Well, you have a right to your own opinion. But I think the Dark Knight will get success with the new Joker. Seeing how it's a much more darker tale and seeing as how Joker will be more sadistic, psychotic, and unpredictable it'll be very refreshing to see.

I think Singer would've greatly explored what you mentioned in X3 if he was given the chance. That was one thing I would've LOVED to have seen.

 

[BMM]

. . . young Clark doing super leaping (since when does Superman do super jumps!!??)

Isn't this question an offense to Superman canon or something . . .

"Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!"

 

[X-Maniac]

Isn't this question an offense to Superman canon or something . . .

"Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!"

Hmmm...but has he ever done that leaping? It just doesn't fit with what I have read/seen of Superman (though he did leap once in Smallville)...

Still, you may be right, in which case i humbly take it back, although the childhood flashbacks were (I thought) unnecessary and better kept as DVD extras!

 

[danoyse]

Yep. Glitter was number one at the Box Office I'm afraid. But this was also due to 9/11 if I'm not mistaken or that may be another movie.

Read the post above. Glitter was #11 on it's opening weekend, per Box Office Mojo: http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2001&wknd=38&p=.htm

The only reference to 9/11 (and no, I did not see the movie) I remember is that they apparently left an image of the WTC in the movie, and moviegoers interviewed in NYC said that didn't disturb them nearly as much as Mariah's acting did.

I think people just didn't understand Superman Returns. This isn't a knock on you or naything, but the people of America have short attention spans. Only a few seem to enjoy great movies with emotion and deeper meaning.

The rest of them just seem to want action, action, action, and more action. I think people went into Superman Returns expecting exactly that, and we disappointed at the result. Sure, it was long and sure it could've had a bit more thrills, but I loved it for what it was and will buy the DVD.

I don't think it was a matter of people not understanding Superman Returns, it was just wanting more from it. It wasn't a restart...but it wasn't exactly a sequel to the Donner films, either, so it never really felt like it's own film. It used the same villian with a land scheme. Superman is so much of a boy scout compared to so many of popular superheroes in the movies today, he really came off as a lot more one-dimensional than he should have been.

Wanting more action doesn't necessarily mean people want it at the expensive of a story. Superman Returns had plenty of story...but it wouldn't have hurt to have a few more action sequences. I remember seeing "Superman II" in the theater with my friends when were kids, and we went crazy when he showed up at the Daily Planet window with "General, would you care to step outside?" There was no moment like that in SR, and I really think moments like that would have made it a much more fun movie.

That being said, I actually enjoyed Superman Returns...I saw it opening night, and went back over the weekend to see it at the IMAX. I thought Brandon Routh was an excellent Superman, and I think I'm one of the only people who loved the idea of him having a kid. I'm looking forward to the sequel...I'm just hoping Singer makes his own version of Superman without relying so much on the Donner films.

 

[BMM]

Hmmm...but has he ever done that leaping? It just doesn't fit with what I have read/seen of Superman (though he did leap once in Smallville)...

I don't know. Being that I'm not as much of a Superman enthusiast as I am an X-Men enthusiast, I can't give you an extensive analysis covering the appropriate mediums. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It absolutely fits with the character, as this phrase has been used to describe Superman since before the X-Men were a gleam in Stan Lee's eye. It is one of the most (if not the most) popular phrases used to identify a superhero ever. Having Superman leap tall buildings in a single bound has been an indelible trademark of the character for at least 50+ years now. It is essentially written in stone as much as "Look up in the sky . . ."

Still, you may be right, in which case i humbly take it back, although the childhood flashbacks were (I thought) unnecessary and better kept as DVD extras!

I think the childhood flashback was edited entirely too much. If the movie is going to be long, let it be long with all of its explanation and purpose intact.

Warts and all, apparently the movie is still estimated to pull in decent money. It is believed to be making over $1,000,000 dollars this weekend, which surprises me since it is going into its third month now.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

More people seeing a movie has to be seen as evidence of its popularity, and commercial success. It's not necessarily an indication of quality.

But of course it means it's more well-liked if more people went to see it!

Even if half the people who went to see it didnt like it? I'm sorry but the fact that a movie made a lot of money DOESNT neccessarily mean a lot of people liked it. Many people on this board and in my social life saw the movie a disliked it, on the other hand many on here do like it, it seems split right down the middle, but even POTC 2 is very mixed in its popularity with fans, despite the money it has made. Thats a very poor argument for proving a movies quality.

Because Fantastic Four made nearly as much as Batman Begins does that mean its almost as popular? I'll let you answer that one.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Isn't this question an offense to Superman canon or something . . .

"Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!"

Exactly, when Superman was younger he could ONLY leap great distances. He couldnt fly originally, but learned to do so eventually.

 

[X-Maniac]

Even if half the people who went to see it didnt like it? I'm sorry but the fact that a movie made a lot of money DOESNT neccessarily mean a lot of people liked it. Many people on this board and in my social life saw the movie a disliked it, on the other hand many on here do like it, it seems split right down the middle, but even POTC 2 is very mixed in its popularity with fans, despite the money it has made. Thats a very poor argument for proving a movies quality.

I'm not talking about quality, i'm talking about its pulling power at the box office, the level of interest it generated. Since that initial interest panned out pretty well (despite a high drop in the second weekend) to become a huge worldwide box office total, then this movie was obviously a hit, a popular movie. No matter what you thought of it, the box office success stands.

Because Fantastic Four made nearly as much as Batman Begins does that mean its almost as popular? I'll let you answer that one.

Yes, Fantastic Four did very well - because of its timing as a summer blockbuster, and because the FF hadn't been seen on the big screen before and were therefore a fresh idea. The critics tore the movie to shreds in places (like the Daily Mail saying Jessica Alba was only good when she was invisible!) but that sort of paper was never going to like the movie (and I thought Alba did a pretty good job). Just shows that the public ignore snotty critics who are up their own rectal cavities, and instead make up their own minds. We are not a nation of luvvies.

This doesn't mean FF was a quality movie (most people will agree it was far too lightweight), it means it was a box office draw and it was pretty popular.

Batman Begins became popular over time, when people heard how good it was and when people understood why it was nothing like the previous Batmovies or the 60s TV series. A friend of mine saw it and hated it because his reference for Batman is that old TV series, so i showed him some comics and explained what the movie set out to do and took him to see it again, and he liked it much more. Having seen it at home since, it can be a little heavy-going in places and I can see that it would not be everyone's thing because it (like SR) was so dark and serious.

I know you are very keen to defend Bryan, defend SR and tell us all how many times you went to see it... almost to the point of seeming to have an agenda beyond merely being a fan... but too much dark and serious is not a good thing with superheroes - the public expects superpowered showdowns, energy and adventure as well as emotion and drama. Which is why Bryan's somewhat pretentious take on SR did not work on a wider level. Warner knows it has to keep the film out there as long as possible (it now feels rather forced that it's still showing) to bring in money, a move that seems to have worked with the recent holiday weekend.

 

[chaseter]

So because more people have seen a movie that means it is generally more liked? I'm sorry, but thats bull**** in a big way. Do you think the general audience think more of Fantastic Four than X1 Sin City because FF made more money? Do the general audience think more of Spiderman 1 than Spidey 2 because the first made more money?

Sorry to single you out but i just hate that excuse when people argue over the quality of one movie over another.

Oh and for the record i LOVED SR and hated X3, but that doesnt factor in to what i just said.

How do you know the general audience didn't like F4 over X1 or Sin City? The only polls we have are internet based and those are highly biased. The only figures we can really go by are box office/ticket sales. Sin City was great but was targeted for a certain audience...adults that like gore and a different style. F4 was targeted for almost anyone...hence the PG-13 rating. So the more people that watch a movie...more people will like it just as the same chances go for more people will hate it. F4 did so well they are making a sequel...who would of thought. Sure Sin City is making a prequel but once again that will target a smaller audience. I never once said anything about any other movie besides SR and X3. So lets keep that in the paramaters. The original argument was that SR was better than X3...I disagreed with that and showed my reasons why...I didn't go off a tangent to other movies like you are doing. And that is bulls*** in a big way. It is called grasping at straws or the straw man agrument. You are rephrasing my argument to make it appear weak and unstable. No one on here can match my figures or results I posted. They, like you, come on here and rant about how I am wrong and why they think so...with only personal thoughts backing. Once a nation wide poll is correctly done with random testing to find out if X3 or SR was better...then I will shutup. But to say X3 sucked and the huge drop after the first week is proof is crap. No s*** it will have a big second week drop when it racked in 123 million the first weekend. Everyone that was passionate about seeing it went out the first weekend. Big blockbuster movies that are highly promoted and pushed like X3 usally see large drops their second weeks out...they expect this.

Who would of thought you hated X3...but if you look at my figures...SR did horrible opening day and the following weeks to come. Sure it had lower % drops...but a considerably lower starting box office means it was still slumping behind X3...and that is for a reason...the general public just didn't think it was great. And since we are on the subject of throwing in friends' analysis...most of my friends said Superman should have punched something. Sure X3 could have been phenomenal and I won't deny that. But for a lot of people to sit here and say it was horrible is just crap. Sad to say but most of America disagrees with you. Even Amazon's dvd polls have X3 above SR for upcoming releases. I will even guarantee you that X3's dvd sales will top SR and be just under Pirates just like the summer season played out.

 

[BMM]

But for a lot of people to sit here and say it was horrible is just crap.

Why? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

Sad to say but most of America disagrees with you.

How do you know? Because of box office numbers? Box office numbers can be spun either way. For instance, The Last Stand is the only 2006 summer release unable to duplicate its first 4 day opening audience numbers. It made over half of its money in its first 4 days, after which not even the same number of people were ever willing to see it again. Even movies like Garfield and Step Up were able to do this, but The Last Stand couldn't. What does that say about the continued preference and quality of the picture?

This isn't to say that The Last Stand is a bad movie, and this isn't to say that Returns isn't a bad movie. Both could have been much better . . . but this is an indicator of why there is much more to box office numbers than simple totals.

If we were to blindly go by box office numbers as an overall indicator of what America prefers, then we would all have to concede the fact that the majority of Americans would rather watch a mind numbingly stupid movie like Pokemon the First Movie over films such as Ray or V for Vendetta, which I hope to God isn't true.

Even Amazon's dvd polls have X3 above SR for upcoming releases.

Well, I should hope so considering Superman Returns doesn't even look to be available for sale, let alone pre-order.

I will even guarantee you that X3's dvd sales will top SR and be just under Pirates just like the summer season played out.

I am willing to bet this as well. The Last Stand's DVD sales will most likely top Returns' DVD sales . . . but just under Dead Man's Chest like during the summer season? . . . X-Men was far below Dead Man's Chest during the summer season . . . just like every other movie. It wasn't even close. You never know though. People may not have liked what they saw in the theater well enough to serve as a reason to buy Dead Man's Chest on DVD. I didn't think it was all it was cracked up to be.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

chaseter, I disagree with you that the box office numbers dictate the general audience's opinion of the movie, and here is why.

The biggest reason why X-Men: The Last Stand did better than Superman Returns is because of the hype.

The general audience is not given enough credit around here for common knowledge regarding the X-Men. Sure, they aren't as iconic as the likes of Batman or Superman, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone that didn't have some basic knowledge of the X-Men. So it wasn't just us die hard X-Men fans here on the Superhero Hype that knew a 3rd X-Men movie was coming when we saw Jean Grey leave the plane, and the Phoenix silohuette in the water to close the film. Many people knew what was coming, and they were waiting for it. X2 had just as much of an impact on the success of X-Men: The Last Stand as anything the movie itself did. I'd contend that they could show gay porn in a pile of horse crap for 2 hours, and it'd still have a huge opening weekend, just because people would see a 3rd X-Men movie coming out.

Then there are the release date influences, being Memorial Day weekend, first big release of the summer, etc... that all contributed to the early success of the film.

Now, we all know how I feel about this movie... NOW. But remember how I felt about this movie after seeing it the first time? I feel that this movie isn't a good "first viewing" movie. It was hyped up to be something it simply wasn't, love the movie or not. And in my own personal experience (which is just that, personal experience, not a testament to overall sentiment), initial reaction seems to be a lot closer to my original reaction.

Case in point:

Me: Disappointed first viewing, loved it 2nd + viewings.

My friend Ryan: Hated it on first viewing. Originally part of my plans to see the movie 5 days straight... did not see it with me a 2nd time.

My friend Joel: Not a big X-Men fan, but wanted to see this film. Disappointed. Stated that even though he didn't think he'd care, Cyclops' death, and Wolverine being put in his place felt cheap and forced. And this is someone not familiar with the comic books mythos.

My co-worker Brittany: Hated it the first time seeing it, and told me how badly made a movie it was. After seeing it a second time, she felt it was better. Not great, but a good movie.

My boss Scott: Despises the movie. He ranks this movie "#7 out of 3"

Friend's step brother: Thought it was crap

Friend's room mate: Thought it could have been better. Didn't understand why Cyclops needed to be killed, didn't think that entire arc made any sense.

Those are all on top of the seemingly disappointed reactions I witnessed after the midnight showing (the first reaction I heard after the midnight showing was the person next to me saying "Where was Nightcrawler?" and then in conversation with him, he said he was disappointed, and wouldn't have even known that was Psylocke if it weren't for her name in the credits). I ended up seeing the movie the 5 times straight, as well as 2 other times, and boy did the theatres seem to get emptier and emptier after opening day. I've heard 1 person say she liked it, and it was just kind of a casual "it was good" remark when she told me she had seen it, because she knew how much of a dork I was for X-Men.

Again, my experiences don't speak for everyone, I understand that. But in my experience, I haven't seen a strong positive reaction for this film. In fact, it's been more negative / mixed. So no, I don't believe that because it put up good numbers, it was a superior movie. I believe it's big numbers were a direct cause of X2's impact, and people wanting to see what was gonna happen next. I disagree, because I'm an X-Men fan, and I think the movies are just plain better, but the Spiderman franchise has been THE superhero franchise since 2001, edging out the X-Men films. Now, I think with what X-Men: The Last Stand turned out to be, Spiderman is going to be revered as the superior superhero movie franchise. And I think that sucks ass. But as much as I like it... now... I don't think X-Men: The Last Stand's success is an indicator of quality.

 

[La_She-Beast]

Sad to say but most of America disagrees with you.

What about the rest of the world?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

chaseter, I disagree with you that the box office numbers dictate the general audience's opinion of the movie, and here is why.

The biggest reason why X-Men: The Last Stand did better than Superman Returns is because of the hype.

The general audience is not given enough credit around here for common knowledge regarding the X-Men. Sure, they aren't as iconic as the likes of Batman or Superman, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone that didn't have some basic knowledge of the X-Men. So it wasn't just us die hard X-Men fans here on the Superhero Hype that knew a 3rd X-Men movie was coming when we saw Jean Grey leave the plane, and the Phoenix silohuette in the water to close the film. Many people knew what was coming, and they were waiting for it. X2 had just as much of an impact on the success of X-Men: The Last Stand as anything the movie itself did. I'd contend that they could show gay porn in a pile of horse crap for 2 hours, and it'd still have a huge opening weekend, just because people would see a 3rd X-Men movie coming out.

Then there are the release date influences, being Memorial Day weekend, first big release of the summer, etc... that all contributed to the early success of the film.

Now, we all know how I feel about this movie... NOW. But remember how I felt about this movie after seeing it the first time? I feel that this movie isn't a good "first viewing" movie. It was hyped up to be something it simply wasn't, love the movie or not. And in my own personal experience (which is just that, personal experience, not a testament to overall sentiment), initial reaction seems to be a lot closer to my original reaction.

Case in point:

Me: Disappointed first viewing, loved it 2nd + viewings.

My friend Ryan: Hated it on first viewing. Originally part of my plans to see the movie 5 days straight... did not see it with me a 2nd time.

My friend Joel: Not a big X-Men fan, but wanted to see this film. Disappointed. Stated that even though he didn't think he'd care, Cyclops' death, and Wolverine being put in his place felt cheap and forced. And this is someone not familiar with the comic books mythos.

My co-worker Brittany: Hated it the first time seeing it, and told me how badly made a movie it was. After seeing it a second time, she felt it was better. Not great, but a good movie.

My boss Scott: Despises the movie. He ranks this movie "#7 out of 3"

Friend's step brother: Thought it was crap

Friend's room mate: Thought it could have been better. Didn't understand why Cyclops needed to be killed, didn't think that entire arc made any sense.

Those are all on top of the seemingly disappointed reactions I witnessed after the midnight showing (the first reaction I heard after the midnight showing was the person next to me saying "Where was Nightcrawler?" and then in conversation with him, he said he was disappointed, and wouldn't have even known that was Psylocke if it weren't for her name in the credits). I ended up seeing the movie the 5 times straight, as well as 2 other times, and boy did the theatres seem to get emptier and emptier after opening day. I've heard 1 person say she liked it, and it was just kind of a casual "it was good" remark when she told me she had seen it, because she knew how much of a dork I was for X-Men.

Again, my experiences don't speak for everyone, I understand that. But in my experience, I haven't seen a strong positive reaction for this film. In fact, it's been more negative / mixed. So no, I don't believe that because it put up good numbers, it was a superior movie. I believe it's big numbers were a direct cause of X2's impact, and people wanting to see what was gonna happen next. I disagree, because I'm an X-Men fan, and I think the movies are just plain better, but the Spiderman franchise has been THE superhero franchise since 2001, edging out the X-Men films. Now, I think with what X-Men: The Last Stand turned out to be, Spiderman is going to be revered as the superior superhero movie franchise. And I think that sucks ass. But as much as I like it... now... I don't think X-Men: The Last Stand's success is an indicator of quality.

Thank you for explaining that, you did it better than i ever could. Chaseter, not only was X3 opening on probably the biggest weekend of the year box office wise, but it was also following 2 movies that were liked by the general audience and were also very popular. And most people i know thought the X3 was poor, the only ones i know who liked are my oldest brother (who also thinks Van Helsing is one of the best movies ever) and my cousin (who goes to watch movies depending on how good looking the male cast are).

X3 had its big drop-off for a reason, because most people never went to see it a second time. Me, and 9 of my friends who all saw it once, all thought it was garbage.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What about the rest of the world?

Exactly, not to mention that his statement is based on box office ONLY.

 

[ntcrawler]

X3 had its big drop-off for a reason, because most people never went to see it a second time. Me, and 9 of my friends who all saw it once, all thought it was garbage.

Agreed! That there's part of the key: repeat viewings. It's why movies like LOTR were in the movie theatre for such a long time. THe hype and media frenzy was there to get as many people to see it once, because they knew it wouldn't have much repeat business. That in itself worked. It was a good investment from a financial point of view, yes. On that level it was successful. But Citizen Kane or Star Wars or even X2 it is not.

 

[Cyclops]

I'd argue it's not even as good as Fantastic Four.

 

[Neptune]

Hell yay Singer. I think he did a job with Superman.

 

[chaseter]

How do you know? Because of box office numbers? Box office numbers can be spun either way. For instance, The Last Stand is the only 2006 summer release unable to duplicate its first 4 day opening audience numbers. It made over half of its money in its first 4 days, after which not even the same number of people were ever willing to see it again. Even movies like Garfield and Step Up were able to do this, but The Last Stand couldn't. What does that say about the continued preference and quality of the picture?

Well first off X3 made a huge amount and broke the previous memorial day holiday record. Can Garfield or Step Up say that? Secondly nearly all hugely hyped blockbusters have a considerable drop the second week in. Why? Because most everyone who was passionate about it went to see it during its opening. X3's second week in was just under SR's opening week by about 10 million. Sure Gigli almost matched its opening weekend but when you open with such a low number...big drops the second week in are only in the thousands...not the millions. My biggest pet peeve on here is to hear the constant, repetitive complaints that have been going on for the last 4 months...so I am here to be one of the few people on here trying to defend the movie...or at least stand up to those people.

If box office numbers or dvd sales like I mentioned aren't a good indicator of quality, which I completely explained, then what is? No one is going to go out and do an accurate poll with random sampling to determine the quality of a movie. Internet polls and critic reviews are about the only thing people go by on here. Internet polls are highly biased and extremely limited to those people that only visit that certain site. For example the polls on here. Critic reviews were mixed but certainly do not represent the majority of the people.

This isn't to say that The Last Stand is a bad movie, and this isn't to say that Returns isn't a bad movie. Both could have been much better . . . but this is an indicator of why there is much more to box office numbers than simple totals.

I agree and have said it before that I just thought X3 was ok...it lacked a lot and could have been pheonomenal. But Fox didn't allow that. There is more to box office totals...people on here just aren't looking at them correctly. For instance the 'legs' theory going around on here. As mentioned, most blockbusters have a considerable drop their second week in and on. So they all technically don't have good 'legs'. Even SR was showing drops over 50%...those aren't 'legs' to me.

If we were to blindly go by box office numbers as an overall indicator of what America prefers, then we would all have to concede the fact that the majority of Americans would rather watch a mind numbingly stupid movie like Pokemon the First Movie over films such as Ray or V for Vendetta, which I hope to God isn't true.

Secondly, film awards such as Oscars, etc...are perfect indicators for quality. We don't yet have those so I am simply going off of what unbiased information we have...not personal experiences or a friend's review. Ray won a lot of Oscars and other awards and V won some. V was a great movie and one of the best of the year so far. It sadly fell victim to poor hype and low advertising as well as its terrorist theme...which America...or Bush...is currently combating...but it did win some awards. It still did pretty good at the box office though.

Well, I should hope so considering Superman Returns doesn't even look to be available for sale, let alone pre-order.

X3 isn't available for sale and was just recently available for pre-order.

I am willing to bet this as well. The Last Stand's DVD sales will most likely top Returns' DVD sales . . . but just under Dead Man's Chest like during the summer season? . . . X-Men was far below Dead Man's Chest during the summer season . . . just like every other movie. It wasn't even close. You never know though. People may not have liked what they saw in the theater well enough to serve as a reason to buy Dead Man's Chest on DVD. I didn't think it was all it was cracked up to be.

I stick by my dvd predicitons and still think dvd sales and rentals are an even better indicator of quality and likeability. For people to shell out over 20 bucks for a dvd and near 1/4 of that for a rental is a good sign that people: a) haven't seen it and want to, b)people who did see it want to see it again. For a movie to make a lot of money on those sales and top the dvd charts for a while is a good indicator that the movie obviously was good.

 

[chaseter]

I'd argue it's not even as good as Fantastic Four.

I'd argue that your just still upset over Scott getting the shaft within the first 15 minutes and you continually take out your rage on here against the movie, its director, and Fox.