Dark Phoenix $ The DARK PHOENIX Box Office Speculation ThreaD $

[Ordet]

X2 did God Loves Man Kills. With a non-Reverend Stryker and a non-Anne Reynolds henchwoman.

Most people on here love that movie. It's my favorite movie.

X2 doesn't count.

It went out before MCU/Disney so the like (or not like) about that film is genuine.

 

[EnDz0n3]

^^^ You're just trolling now.

I have seen nothing but kvetching on this board about FC and DOFP, especially regarding Mystique but also Havok, the emphasis on Xavier and all the rest, ever since the prospect of Disney buying X-Men surfaced.

In all fairness DOFP was great in spite of JLaw's acting, or lack of trying. Whenever people complain about JLaw's acting in the X-men franchise, her defenders, without missing a beat, always point out to her David O. Russell movies.

Can you tell me one good thing about Havok's role in DOFP?

Not to mention mute characters. That said people on here still appreciate it as one of the highlights of the franchise. But just because it's great does not preclude it from valid criticism.

FC I've always hated and I make no apologies about it. People do love it here though. I still appreciate it for what its done for the franchise.

So my point still stands. Fans appreciate good quality movies.

If Dark Phoenix is good, I promise you the usual suspects will dig into the changes to a nitpicky degree if that is the only leg they have t stand on. Psylocolossus has already promised to do exactly that for it and New Mutants, so...

That's one big caveat...

Those of us who complain about Kinberg have facts and his filmography on our side. Those who defend him have what? Blind faith?

I don't care enough to find out.

It's akin to watching CNN, putting one's hands over one's ears and shouting la la la la la.

 

[Hand Banana]

That's one big caveat...

Those of us who complain about Kinberg have facts and his filmography on our side. Those who defend him have what? Blind faith?

Well, Kinberg did do the screenplay for DOFP. The problems with X3 are not really his fault(for the most part). It’s the studio that didn’t want to focus on the Phoenix story because they thought it was too dark according to Kinberg. Considering the fact that the studio was a bit afraid to push Logan because it was dark it’s likely true.

The main problem with Apocalypse’s script is that it didn’t reestablished what Hank said in DOFP about time fixing itself, which would have made the contrived and repetitive moments more tolerable. Then there is the already mentioned rewrites that happened during filming, which we don’t know who to blame.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Well, Kinberg did do the screenplay for DOFP.

With a great deal of help from Singer for the script and from Ottman in the editing room. Neither of those people are back for DP so this should be interesting to say the least.

The problems with X3 are not really his fault(for the most part). It’s the studio that didn’t want to focus on the Phoenix story because they thought it was too dark according to Kinberg. Considering the fact that the studio was a bit afraid to push Logan because it was dark it’s likely true.

The ole' anyone but him, amirite?

The main problem with Apocalypse’s script is that reestablished what Hank in DOFP about time fixing its, which would have made the contrived and repetitive moments more tolerable. Then there is the already mentioned rewrites that happened during filming, which we don’t know who to blame.

Most blockbusters from as far back as X-men 1 are written and rewritten during filming. I don't know why Producer Hutch Parker had to bring that up.

It's like they were trying to find so many things to blame for the the pitfalls of X-men: Apocalypse but at the same time hire the same writer to direct the follow up...

 

[SumT]

I found the EW article a bit dirty, tbh. Not sure if Kinberg and co. added some fire or it was all on the editor's part. But why the need to talk about the whole Singer polemic on the very 1st magazine about Dark Phoenix? and not only that, but talking about mess during Apocalypse filming, when everyone knows it was Bryan the one directing.
Mess indeed

 

[Hand Banana]

The ole' anyone but him, amirite?

I said “for the most part”. Him fighting for the Phoenix story to still be apart of the movie resulted in a classic X-take being wasted as a subplot. But Tom Rothman was still the source of that movie’s problems with him rushing it out.

Most blockbusters from as far back as X-men 1 are written and rewritten during filming. I don't know why Producer Hutch Parker had to bring that up.

It's like they were trying to find so many things to blame for the the pitfalls of X-men: Apocalypse but at the same time hire the same writer to direct the follow up...

But did they have an absence director?

 

[EnDz0n3]

I said “for the most part”. Him fighting for the Phoenix story to still be apart of the movie resulted in a classic X-take being wasted as a subplot. But Tom Rothman was still the source of that movie’s problems with him rushing it out.

So what was the problem with Fant4stic? With This Means War? XXX2? Jumper?

But did they have an absence director?

Well I think some of us here want him to be absent from the set

 

[psylockolussus]

I have seen nothing but kvetching on this board about FC and DOFP, especially regarding Mystique but also Havok, the emphasis on Xavier and all the rest, ever since the prospect of Disney buying X-Men surfaced.

If Dark Phoenix is good, I promise you the usual suspects will dig into the changes to a nitpicky degree if that is the only leg they have t stand on. Psylocolossus has already promised to do exactly that for it and New Mutants, so...

Again another baseless accusation, I didn't promise anything about New Mutants. First, you claimed that I defend X3 because it had the ot cast then you generalizedme as a MCU fanboy and I am sure there are more, but this thread isn't for your baseless accusations. If you are gonna accused me of anything, at least back it up with my older posts to support your baseless accusations.

By the way, when are you ginna create your Disney Skepticism thread?

 

[Hand Banana]

So what was the problem with Fant4stic? With This Means War? XXX2? Jumper?

I’m only familiar with Fant4tsic and its production sounded utterly chaotic! There were way more problems than Kinberg’s rewrites.

Those other movies you’ve mention don’t have directors with good track records either. Except Jumper’s who also did The Bourne Identity and Edge of Tomorrow(which I love!). Jumper had David S. Goyer on it too.

 

[Frankeh]

Oh get a grip, he was clearly on set through most of the scenes that made it to film so how much was he not there to have made a difference?

Oh it was said he wasn't there at times so i am wrong... ok i guess that was the ghost of Singer on set all those times.

There is nothing to swallow my pride for here.

You posted pictures to prove people were making stuff up/lying.

Hollywod Report confirmed what those people were claiming.

You should be apologizing, but instead you come back as confident as ever. And yet you're talking about other people being proud? Lol.

 

[Frankeh]

Those other movies you’ve mention don’t have directors with good track records either.

Ah the ol everyone's to blame except him?

Kinberg was a creative force behind Fant4stic. He admitted their idea for the film tonally clashed with the DNA of the Fantastic Four so why does everyone defend him?

 

[GuestStar2004]

You posted pictures to prove people were making stuff up/lying.

Hollywod Report confirmed what those people were claiming.

You should be apologizing, but instead you come back as confident as ever. And yet you're talking about other people being proud? Lol.

Because I am confident about it.

I have seen picture evidence of singer directing most of the scenes in the movie and unless you can explain how it means nothing then to me the evidence is right there.

 

[Frankeh]

Because I am confident about it.

I have seen picture evidence of singer directing most of the scenes in the movie and unless you can explain how it means nothing then to me the evidence is right there.

So you know more than The Hollywood Reporter? Than people who have contacts in production and have proved it?

 

[Ordet]

Kinberg was always the weaker part of the chain.

Can we agree on this?

But

he is NOW in the middle of his career, so his last works (producer for the Martian, producer for Logan, writer/producer for Apoc.) have to be count more than his first works (X3 and other)

 

[GuestStar2004]

So you know more than The Hollywood Reporter? Than people who have contacts in production and have proved it?

Depend how dramatic you wanna be about it. if THR says he wasn't around sometimes on set then it's Ooooooh he wasn't around and a lot of the film had to be ghost directed!... Or no he wasn't around in minor scenes and action bit which took weeks to film but was around almost every other key scene that he is clearly pictured directing.

Remember when jackman said Logan was like its own universe and people jumped on that wagon saying it's now fact it's set in a different universe... Course I argued to not jump to conclusion as it could be a context thing but nooooo people took it and went over dramatically nuts about it.

 

[Hand Banana]

Ah the ol everyone's to blame except him?

Missing the point again. Which is that it’s kind of fallacious to single out a screenwriter as the fault of a movie’s reception. Especially, when the criticism isn’t just towards the writing.

Use Boll doesn’t write most of the his movies.

Kinberg was a creative force behind Fant4stic. He admitted their idea for the film tonally clashed with the DNA of the Fantastic Four so why does everyone defend him?

lol You think that the tone clashing with comics is why that thing is considered a disaster?

 

[Frankeh]

Missing the point again. Which is that it’s kind of fallacious to single out a screenwriter as the fault of a movie’s reception. Especially, when the criticism isn’t just towards the writing.

Use Boll doesn’t write most of the his movies.

It's kind of fallacious to say he's blameless for those failures just because his writing isn't possibly the only reason those movies sucked. Don't shift the conversation...

lol You think that the tone clashing with comics is why that thing is considered a disaster?

Take it up with Kinberg, the guy you're defending, not me. HIS words.

 

[Hand Banana]

It's kind of fallacious to say he's blameless for those failures just because his writing isn't possibly the only reason those movies sucked. Don't shift the conversation...

Can you stop putting words in my mouth, please?

Take it up with Kinberg, the guy you're defending, not me. HIS words.

Did he actually say that’s the reason why that movie was a mess? Because a good adaptation does not necessarily make a good movie.

 

[Frankeh]

Can you stop putting words in my mouth, please?

You're right, you didn't say the word blameless. I didn't say he's the only one to blame either. But that still doesn't mean those aren't failures in his career. So let's stop the herecy accusations.

Did he actually say that’s the reason why that movie was a mess? Because a good adaptation does not necessarily make a good movie.

I think the biggest takeaway for me [is that] the tone of the movie, while really interesting and ambitious, ran counter to the DNA of the source material.

So, he seems to disagree with you on the "good adaptation =/= good movie". I personally think if something worked on the page then it should work the same way on screen otherwise why are you adapting it?

 

[DACrowe]

In all fairness DOFP was great in spite of JLaw's acting, or lack of trying. Whenever people complain about JLaw's acting in the X-men franchise, her defenders, without missing a beat, always point out to her David O. Russell movies.

Can you tell me one good thing about Havok's role in DOFP?

Not to mention mute characters. That said people on here still appreciate it as one of the highlights of the franchise. But just because it's great does not preclude it from valid criticism.

FC I've always hated and I make no apologies about it. People do love it here though. I still appreciate it for what its done for the franchise.

So my point still stands. Fans appreciate good quality movies.

While I actually like Mystique a lot in FC and DOFP (not Apocalypse), I completely understand criticisms regarding Havok or Emma, or what have you in those earlier movies. But I think those movies are so good and work so well, especially First Class, that I am less prone to caring that some characters are well serviced and others aren't, especially in casts that big. The problem with Apocalypse is it kept returning to the well of the same main three characters from FC so it felt like a merry go round. But I do not hold that against FC.

As for J. Law, I thought she was solid if not spectacular in the first two X-films she did (yes I agree she is wooden in the airport scene in DOFP, unfortunately because McAvoy is bringing the heat there). However, if you want to see her do good work in non-Russell movies, she was quite good in mother! and terrific in Winter's Bone, as well. I also thought she was a great Katniss. But yes, here is hoping she sends off her Mystique character well in Dark Phoenix, as it is the last one... no matter what happens on screen.

That's one big caveat...

Those of us who complain about Kinberg have facts and his filmography on our side. Those who defend him have what? Blind faith?

Heh, touche on the first count. As for what do we have? Um.... a really slick EW spread?!

Yeah, it is not a lot to hang your hat on. But before that EW spread, I was very gloomy about this movie. Now, I have some faint cautious optimism. Mostly though, so many are so spiteful to not just the movie but all of the X-Men films now with the Disney deal, I am kind of rooting for it because it is an underdog. If it is good, it'd be like Rocky Balboa going the distance, which no one expected. And it's weird to view a superhero movie that way, but here we are, so... eh? We shall see.

 

[DACrowe]

Again another baseless accusation, I didn't promise anything about New Mutants. First, you claimed that I defend X3 because it had the ot cast then you generalizedme as a MCU fanboy and I am sure there are more, but this thread isn't for your baseless accusations. If you are gonna accused me of anything, at least back it up with my older posts to support your baseless accusations.

Since you asked... first, I'll concede you didn't directly also include New Mutants in the post I recalled (you just rag incessantly about it in every post about it looking "cheap" without accepting that it is intentionally trying not to look like for a generic superhero movie).

But as for Dark Phoenix here you go, from just a few days ago in the Sophie Turner thread:

Its not even hate anymore, I feel indifference now as Disney/Murdoch gave a new hope for the X-Men movies in the near future. I am going to see this movie, criticize every little thing and then move on discussing Mcu's X-Men reboot.

So to recap: Because of the Disney deal you don't care about Dark Phoenix, but plan to see it and "criticize every little thing" before moving on to the MCU reboot. Yeah, you sound very open minded and like someone who is not going in prepared to hate it no matter what.

By the way, when are you ginna create your Disney Skepticism thread?

Probably never, because those kind of threads are silly and reductive. You have this weird thing where it's all about bending the knee to one studio (Disney) or burning another (Fox). It's not about brand loyalty.

 

[X-Maniac]

You have this weird thing where it's all about bending the knee to one studio (Disney) or burning another (Fox). It's not about brand loyalty.

How people in here are feeling with regard to the X-Men isn't about brand loyalty.

Almost all of the regulars in here are X-Men fans, first and foremost - aside from some OTT defenders who are probably studio plants and the occasional MCU fanboy who wants the X-Men with Disney no matter what.

But the regular X-Men fans just want the best for the characters they grew up with, read, watched, loved.

Watching the continual focus on Charles, Erik and Raven isn't really servicing the X-Men as a whole. Hence some of us are happy for the MCU to have a go at the X-Men, because we are so frustrated.

And now that Disney is indeed about to (or has) taken over 20th Century Fox, the moment is coming. There's nothing that can be done about that anyway. So those clinging to the Fox adaptations had better accept that change is coming.

 

[The Guard]

A focus on Charles and Eric is just classic X-Men. Their ideologies historically drive the mythos.

The previous trilogy was clearly largely focused on their arc, but I doubt they will get THAT much focus now. Eric had less and less in the last trilogy, and the goal seems to be to shift the focus back to the younger, modern classic X-Men (Scott, Jean, Ororo, Kurt), with Charles and Eric likely taking on more supporting-type roles.

 

[psylockolussus]

Since you asked... first, I'll concede you didn't directly also include New Mutants in the post I recalled (you just rag incessantly about it in every post about it looking "cheap" without accepting that it is intentionally trying not to look like for a generic superhero movie).

But as for Dark Phoenix here you go, from just a few days ago in the Sophie Turner thread:



So to recap: Because of the Disney deal you don't care about Dark Phoenix, but plan to see it and "criticize every little thing" before moving on to the MCU reboot. Yeah, you sound very open minded and like someone who is not going in prepared to hate it no matter what.



Probably never, because those kind of threads are silly and reductive. You have this weird thing where it's all about bending the knee to one studio (Disney) or burning another (Fox). It's not about brand loyalty.

If I bend my knees to Disney. I wouldn't say nothing but good words for The Netflix Marvel shows, Once Upon a Time, Aos.... I even thought Moana and Coco were predictable which you see in the misc films section. Those are all under Disney. Again you're all talk, but no proof of what you are trying to accuse me.

Mind you, this is the box office thread. If you wanna talk about which studio is better, create a separate article since that seems to be your favorite discussion.

 

[X-Maniac]

A focus on Charles and Eric is just classic X-Men. Their ideologies historically drive the mythos.

The previous trilogy was clearly largely focused on their arc, but I doubt they will get THAT much focus now. Eric had less and less in the last trilogy, and the goal seems to be to shift the focus back to the younger, modern classic X-Men (Scott, Jean, Ororo, Kurt), with Charles and Eric likely taking on more supporting-type roles.

Every comic and every episode of the animated series did not focus on Charles and Erik.

It's foolish, repetitive and tedious to make their ideologies the focus of every movie.

The films have seriously overdone some of these underlying ideas. We need a breath of fresh air. Thankfully, the Disney takeover will eventually provide that.