The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 7

[Docker2.0]

Most of DOFP's success was due to the expanded overseas market. Domestically it made less than TLS despite 3d and inflation.

Yep! It was a great film but it's just "another Xmen film" to some degree. They seem to be building towards nothing unless Apocalypse is built up to be the be all baddie. I like the approach Marvel is taking because they have a goal and going places. Kind of like reading a comic book come to life. DC has the potential to be doing the same, though I'm not sure at this moment of the approach they are taking. It seems to be backwards. If they can expand the X-verse instead of just throwing the F4 into it, then I'd have more confidence. Now it seems to be "let's throw this at the wall and see if it sticks" kind of thinking. And I think Xmen seems to say more about Bryan Singer getting the characters and freedom to do what he wants as compared to Fox getting it right. TLS showed as much.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Probably because I'm allowed to voice my opinion. Second, where did I say I cared? Me stating the obvious about comic book movies are allowed on this site because that's what it's for. I don't get why you are allowed to say what you want to say about Fox, which is cool because it's your opinion but if I say something, I'm basically a fanboy.

Hey,Hey lets not start fights
Of course you are allowed to voice your opinions, but I thought it was a common opinion that the Box office doesn't matter when you count it the success as far as us fans are concerned(it matters to the studios),But to each his own.And BTW I agree to that, Fox has been terrible at marketing given how less the X movies have earned compared to other CBM franchises despite being decent movies and having a great fan following, but hey they did quite well with DoFP so maybe they finally figured it out

Secondly,I am not a Fox fan,I just think they deserve credit for how they rejuvenated the X-franchise after 2 bad movies(X3 and Orgins)

 

[I Am The Knight]

Most of DOFP's success was due to the expanded overseas market. Domestically it made less than TLS despite 3d and inflation.

Oh really? Well all I guess DOFP was the only film that played overseas right? I mean Iron Man 3 grossed a billion in America and Canada alone jeez!

All movies benefit from "the expanded overseas market", even more if they use 3D, so I don't see why we must single out DOFP here. Besdes, my post wasn't about how much money it made, I was actually questioning the bizarre statement that DOFP "didn't add any fans to the genre", like that's something we can know just because

 

[Docker2.0]

Hey,Hey lets not start fights
Of course you are allowed to voice your opinions, but I thought it was a common opinion that the Box office doesn't matter when you count it the success as far as us fans are concerned(it matters to the studios),But to each his own.And BTW I agree to that, Fox has been terrible at marketing given how less the X movies have earned compared to other CBM franchises despite being decent movies and having a great fan following, but hey they did quite well with DoFP so maybe they finally figured it out

Secondly,I am not a Fox fan,I just think they deserve credit for how they rejuvenated the X-franchise after 2 bad movies(X3 and Orgins)

2 Things:

1) I only responded to you when you got smart with me and I'm cool. No problems here sir. I just don't like it when people get onto other posters for voicing their opinion when it's contrary to theirs. As long as it's within the rules, we should all that right.

2) Do you have amnesia? You responded to this post yesterday.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I guess he wasn't finished with you

 

[First Avenger]

Docker has a point,Singer is the main reason why the X-movies are good,not Fox itself.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I know what I like so I take box office and critic reception with a grain of salt - but ultimately you need at least one of those for a film to succeed. And as a fan, you hope to see at least one of those things happen for a film you like because it means you're not the only one who enjoyed it and that can be a good feeling.

Box office is important for viability of a franchise. If a film under performs it's not getting a sequel. Or if it does it's a reboot and they end up throwing out many of the things you may have liked the first time around.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Docker has a point,Singer is the main reason why the X-movies are good,not Fox itself.

This is my feeling as well. Singer gave them the blueprint for the X-Men franchise they have today. First Class was a good movie but I consider X2 to be far superior.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Docker has a point,Singer is the main reason why the X-movies are good,not Fox itself.

This is a very interesting point. Take away Singer's films and the only Marvel film Fox has ever made with a RT score over 70 % is First class.

RT average score for all Fox Marvel films not directed by Singer: 46.4 %

RT average score for all Fox Marvel films directed by Singer: 87.0 %

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

This is a very interesting point. Take away Singer's films and the only Marvel film Fox has ever made with a RT score over 70 % is First class.

RT average score for all Fox Marvel films not directed by Singer: 46.4 %

RT average score for all Fox Marvel films directed by Singer: 87.0 %

You could actually apply this kind of metric to other studio CBM's as well. What is Sony without Raimi? What is WB/DC without Nolan? (Not counting Donner or Burton because that's not modern era.)

This is why I think Marvel Studios is cream of the crop. They've demonstrated excellence with numerous directors. Their fate does not rest in any one director's hands. (Though the day Feige leaves they are probably in trouble.)

Fox lucked out with Singer but ultimately Singer did whatever he wanted with the X-Men. Fox is now trying to strike gold a second time in Trank by letting him have his way with the FF franchise. Their "big bet" Emma Watts called it. Whether Trank succeeds remains to be seen but the signs are the confidence isn't there this time around.

 

[marcvader]

This is a very interesting point. Take away Singer's films and the only Marvel film Fox has ever made with a RT score over 70 % is First class.

RT average score for all Fox Marvel films not directed by Singer: 46.4 %

RT average score for all Fox Marvel films directed by Singer: 87.0 %

Wow, never thought of this.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Oh really? Well all I guess DOFP was the only film that played overseas right? I mean Iron Man 3 grossed a billion in America and Canada alone jeez!

All movies benefit from "the expanded overseas market", even more if they use 3D, so I don't see why we must single out DOFP here. Besdes, my post wasn't about how much money it made, I was actually questioning the bizarre statement that DOFP "didn't add any fans to the genre", like that's something we can know just because

You pretty much made my point. Everyone pretty much benefited from the expanded overseas market, so citing that as evidence of growth for DOFP doesn't mean much. For something billed as the franchise's Avengers with a gathering of past and present casts, it couldn't even breach 250 million domestic, plus it opened and grossed less than the much maligned TLS despite 3d and 8 years of inflation, hence the argument that it didn't really expand much beyond it's fanbase.

 

[I Am The Knight]

You pretty much made my point. Everyone pretty much benefited from the expanded overseas market, so citing that as evidence of growth for DOFP doesn't mean much. For something billed as the franchise's Avengers with a gathering of past and present casts, it couldn't even breach 250 million domestic, plus it opened and grossed less than the much maligned TLS despite 3d and 8 years of inflation, hence the argument that it didn't really expand much beyond it's fanbase.

I don't think you understand. Read my posts again and come back with me with evidence that supports the claim that I was questioning.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

You pretty much made my point. Everyone pretty much benefited from the expanded overseas market, so citing that as evidence of growth for DOFP doesn't mean much. For something billed as the franchise's Avengers with a gathering of past and present casts, it couldn't even breach 250 million domestic, plus it opened and grossed less than the much maligned TLS despite 3d and 8 years of inflation, hence the argument that it didn't really expand much beyond it's fanbase.

For reference sake:

X-Men: Days of Future Past Domestic Gross - $233,921,534
X-Men: The Last Stand Domestic Gross - $234,362,462
Iron Man 3 Domestic Gross - $409,013,994
The Avengers Domestic Gross - $623,357,910

 

[Spiderdevil]

I only responded to you when you got smart with me and I'm cool. No problems here sir. I just don't like it when people get onto other posters for voicing their opinion when it's contrary to theirs. As long as it's within the rules, we should all that right.

Its all cool then,I just thought it was weird you kept bringing in Box-office as a measure of how good a movie is/was...but that's your opinion

2) Do you have amnesia? You responded to this post yesterday.

I think I missed this one..anyway..doesn't matter

 

[Spiderdevil]

You could actually apply this kind of metric to other studio CBM's as well. What is Sony without Raimi? What is WB/DC without Nolan? (Not counting Donner or Burton because that's not modern era.)

This is why I think Marvel Studios is cream of the crop. They've demonstrated excellence with numerous directors. Their fate does not rest in any one director's hands. (Though the day Feige leaves they are probably in trouble.)

Fox lucked out with Singer but ultimately Singer did whatever he wanted with the X-Men. Fox is now trying to strike gold a second time in Trank by letting him have his way with the FF franchise. Their "big bet" Emma Watts called it. Whether Trank succeeds remains to be seen but the signs are the confidence isn't there this time around.

That's because Marvel defy all the basics about film making,no matter who they get as Director, the real directors are Feige and the creative team who oversea the movies

 

[See Cap Run]

You pretty much made my point. Everyone pretty much benefited from the expanded overseas market, so citing that as evidence of growth for DOFP doesn't mean much. For something billed as the franchise's Avengers with a gathering of past and present casts, it couldn't even breach 250 million domestic, plus it opened and grossed less than the much maligned TLS despite 3d and 8 years of inflation, hence the argument that it didn't really expand much beyond it's fanbase.

Actually, you're pretty much on the money: I checked on BOM and apparently X-Men lost so much of its domestic audience after TLS and Origins that DOFP had less actual attendance than the first three X-Men films when adjusting for inflation:

290 million, 289 million and 236 million and 228 million- those are the approximate domestic numbers for X-3, X-2, X-1 and DOFP respectively when adjusting for inflation but not 3D.

So it looks like X-Men has actually lost some of its audience domestically rather than gaining a larger one.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

That's because Marvel defy all the basics about film making,no matter who they get as Director, the real directors are Feige and the creative team who oversea the movies

The Broccolis do the same thing with the James Bond franchise and it has worked out well for them too.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

That's because Marvel defy all the basics about film making,no matter who they get as Director, the real directors are Feige and the creative team who oversea the movies

I agree - Feige and co. are key to this whole thing. Yet the directors are definitely contributing to that vision as well. Avengers was very much a Whedon film, Thor was very much a Branagh film, First Avenger very much a Joe Johnston film, Iron Man 3 very much a Shane Black film, GOTG very much a Gunn film etc. etc. But above it all under the creative direction of Feige and gang, they've succeeded in establishing not only an over arching continuity but a type of "cohesion" across their properties despite the variety of tones. I'm very intrigued by how Daredevil will fit into all this because that sounds darker than anything they've done to date. And AOU looks to me like a dramatic shift in tone from the first Avengers. Yet somehow they are making it all work.

But I like this idea of Marvel establishing what I call a "bullpen" of directing talent like the bullpen of the early days of Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Buscema, Thomas, etc. Actually it's uncanny to me how what they are doing in the movies right now mirrors the early days of Marvel comics. It's just sad to me that characters like FF and Spider-Man have to sit on the sidelines during all of it.

For some reason X-Men doesn't bother me as much because they never really hit their stride until Claremont so it's not as essential in my mind that they be part of this universe explosion.

 

[Docker2.0]

I agree - Feige and co. are key to this whole thing. Yet the directors are definitely contributing to that vision as well. Avengers was very much a Whedon film, Thor was very much a Branagh film, First Avenger very much a Joe Johnston film, Iron Man 3 very much a Shane Black film, GOTG very much a Gunn film etc. etc. But above it all under the creative direction of Feige and gang, they've succeeded in establishing not only an over arching continuity but a type of "cohesion" across their properties despite the variety of tones. I'm very intrigued by how Daredevil will fit into all this because that sounds darker than anything they've done to date. And AOU looks to me like a dramatic shift in tone from the first Avengers. Yet somehow they are making it all work.

But I like this idea of Marvel establishing what I call a "bullpen" of directing talent like the bullpen of the early days of Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Buscema, Thomas, etc. Actually it's uncanny to me how what they are doing in the movies right now mirrors the early days of Marvel comics. It's just sad to me that characters like FF and Spider-Man have to sit on the sidelines during all of it.

For some reason X-Men doesn't bother me as much because they never really hit their stride until Claremont so it's not as essential in my mind that they be part of this universe explosion.

That's because Xmen don't fit into the MCU. How can the Avengers exist and be loved whereas the Xmen are hated. They really shouldn't be in the MCU. But I will say that I wouldn't mind a guest appearance of Hugh Jackman in the MCU for fans.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I don't think you understand. Read my posts again and come back with me with evidence that supports the claim that I was questioning.

You asked for evidence on how DOFP didn't add fans to the genre. I pointed out how DOFP opened and grossed less than TLS domestically despite 3D and 8 years of inflation, suggesting that not only did DOFP not grow it's audience, it actually decreased. The significant increase internationally doesn't mean much, as practically almost every half-decent blockbuster is exploding over there.

 

[starscream22]

Hahaha. And how do you backup such a crazy statement? DOFP made more money than most MCU films BTW, so I don't see how you came to the conclusion that "it didn't add any new fans to the genre." DOFP was also quite different from most comic book movies, I don't recall time travel and dystopian society elements in the MCU.

Yeah and the other 6 X-films didn't. Why is that?

People love comparing X-men to Ironman, Thor and Cap as if they where ever on equal ground in the first place. By right X-men and Wolverine solo films SHOULD be better than what the MCU has released. But it wasn't until Marvel stepped up their game that Fox, Sony and WB felt compelled to finally do it themselves.

But people jumping back on the Singer/Fox bandwagon doesn't mean the MCU couldn't dish out a far better X-men franchise.

If nothing else I'm sure the look and continuity of X-men would be better.

 

[starscream22]

Oh and Thor 2 was great IMO. Calling The Wolverine critically acclaimed while in the same breath dissing The Dark World and Iron Man 2 (which scored with critics in the same range or better) is being intellectually dishonest.

I wouldn't call Thor 2 great but if it's on of the weakest links in the MCU, it's still no were near as low as the bar set with Elektra, Origins or FF2 to name a few.

Now when people bring up how great The Wolverine was it just feels like "The Emperor has no clothes". Fox pretty much did to Silver Samurai and Viper what they did to Deadpool in Origins. And it only turned a profit because Fox got cold feet and went cheaper than usual.

I say all this because I don't want Fox doing to F4 what they'll doing to X-men for the next 10-20 years. So if there's a slim chance of FF reverting back sooner rather than later then "Keep hope alive!"

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Most of DOFP's success was due to the expanded overseas market. Domestically it made less than TLS despite 3d and inflation.

Domestically it made less than all Marvel Studios films except Cap 1, both Thor films and Incredible Hulk. It wasn't even able to eclipse X3: The Last Stand.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm

edit: I see you have covered that already. Moving along.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I wouldn't call Thor 2 great but if it's on of the weakest links in the MCU, it's still no were near as low as the bar set with Elektra, Origins or FF2 to name a few.

Now when people bring up how great The Wolverine was it just feels like "The Emperor has no clothes". Fox pretty much did to Silver Samurai and Viper what they did to Deadpool in Origins. And it only turned a profit because Fox got cold feet and went cheaper than usual.

I say all this because I don't want Fox doing to F4 what they'll doing to X-men for the next 10-20 years. So if there's a slim chance of FF reverting back sooner rather than later then "Keep hope alive!"

I can understand if someone likes something other people don't and wants to gush about it. But as far as elevating one divisive film vs. another, it's a weird double standard to me. If you're going to make some attempt at qualitative comparison, then stick with what's universally praised/panned.

I realize I'm in the minority for loving Thor 2 and I can't change the opinions of people who feel the need to dictate what other people should and should not like. But what irks me is that along with Iron Man 2/3 these films have become the clarion call of all MCU detractors as they tirelessly look for chinks in the armor to try and diminish what Marvel has accomplished. I've even seen some complaining about the Age of Ultron trailer and I roll my eyes. If Ant-Man disappoints on some level, this same group of elitest CBM posers will surely add that film to the list. Whatever you consider to be Marvel's "worst" they are still head and shoulders above everyone else and as a fan I appreciate what they've done and am really enjoying the ride. They've earned my good will.

Meanwhile these same people who nitpick Marvel's every move will then drape Fox in a blanket of forgiveness for all the dreck they've forced upon us simply because their latest films haven't sucked. So Bryan Singer can make a good entertaining X-Men film even if it's not true to canon. So what? We already knew that. That doesn't mean they have earned total redemption in my eyes. What have they done with everything else? To me it's not about studio loyalty - it's about the fact that while Marvel continues to delight and surprise, Fox has disappointed me way too many times. Especially when it comes to the Fantastic Four. As much as I rail against this film, if they could actually deliver a masterpiece I would finally change my tune. But that hasn't happened yet and I don't believe it's happening. I feel the total opposite in fact. My feeling is that if Fox truly believed they had something great in the works, they wouldn't be hiding it.