Days of Future Past The Official X-Men: First Class Box Office Discussion Thread! - Part 1

[BestGirl]

Actually Spider-Man is in the same position as X-Men, Shrek and Pirates. It's coming off a widely unpopular movie, they're replacing everyone (who the general public loved and accepted in those roles) and doing a new origin story.

It's going to under-perform.

The budget's gone up from the original $80 million too, hasn't it? That won't help.

Agreed.

I mentioned to my friend's son that there's a new Spiderman movie coming out in 3D next summer. He said "Spiderman 4?!?!?!"

And then I had to explain that no, they're basically doing Spiderman 1 all over again. He didn't understand that at all. Honestly, I couldn't explain why they were doing that either.

If a 7-year-old is utterly baffled at why we need to re-do Spiderman again so soon, I think most of the grownup audience will be thinking the same thing.

I can understand why Sony wants to keep the SM franchise going, but the fact that they're retelling the origin a little over a decade after SM1 really blows my mind. Who's idea was that?

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

You could very well be right. Actually, now that you say it like this, I'm starting to think this will happen.

Plus, TDKR is coming out a few weeks later. And that will kill everything in its path.

If Star Trek 2 had kept its June 29 release, there isn't a doubt in my mind. Captain Kirk and Spock would have murdered Peter Parker at the box-office.

Agreed.

I mentioned to my friend's son that there's a new Spiderman movie coming out in 3D next summer. He said "Spiderman 4?!?!?!"

And then I had to explain that no, they're basically doing Spiderman 1 all over again. He didn't understand that at all. Honestly, I couldn't explain why they were doing that either.

If a 7-year-old is utterly baffled at why we need to re-do Spiderman again so soon, I think most of the grownup audience will be thinking the same thing.

Absolutely. People will have spent 10 years with Tobey Maguire as that character. They're not going to be able to immediately jump to another actor. That takes some getting used to, acceptance, etc. and frankly in the eyes of a lot of people I've talked about the notion of doing the origin again is stupid. "It wasn't that long ago!" is what I've heard.

Ack

Oh yeah...

The budget's gone up from the original $80 million too, hasn't it? That won't help.

I don't think anyone ever believed that number they were throwing around. It reeked of BS from the start.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

In Spider-Man's case, even if it underperforms, a sequel will still happen because Sony needs to produce more films in order to maintain the rights.

Why else would they be making a another Ghost Rider film with Nicolas Cage and Spider-Man is a much, much, higher priority to the studio. It's Sony's flagship franchise and they can't afford to lose it.

They just need to make a quality film and hopefully lay the foundation for a new series of films. It's basically Batman Begins. Re-establish the brand with the reboot and hopefully reap the rewards with the sequel. Superman's also in the same boat as well.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If Star Trek 2 had kept its June 29 release, there isn't a doubt in my mind. Captain Kirk and Spock would have murdered Peter Parker at the box-office.



Absolutely. People will have spent 10 years with Tobey Maguire as that character. They're not going to be able to immediately jump to another actor. That takes some getting used to, acceptance, etc. and frankly in the eyes of a lot of people I've talked about the notion of doing the origin again is stupid. "It wasn't that long ago!" is what I've heard.



Oh yeah...



I don't think anyone ever believed that number they were throwing around. It reeked of BS from the start.

Wow, ST beating Spider-Man? That's a bold claim. But not entirely unrealstic. I could see that. But you are right. i did originally think that if you put anyone in the costume, people won't care, but people will be baffled by it. I don't see the GA blindly going in and getting stoked for an entirely new Spider-Man film with an entirely new cast and direction. Firstly, not many people know about it. And secondly, that will catch them off guard. The footage is really going to have to impress them. It could be a Pirates 4 situation.

 

[bullets]

Absolutely. People will have spent 10 years with Tobey Maguire as that character. They're not going to be able to immediately jump to another actor. That takes some getting used to, acceptance, etc. and frankly in the eyes of a lot of people I've talked about the notion of doing the origin again is stupid. "It wasn't that long ago!" is what I've heard.

When I've talked to people it's either they're done with Spider-man entirely or they liked SM3 and see no reason for a reboot. I think when the trailer hits theaters there's going to be some interesting reactions.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Wait, they're doing the origin again for the new Spider-man movie? Man that's dumb. People know the origin, just do the Spectacular Spider-man thing and start the movie with Pete already established as Spidey.

Any who (there will be some spoilers, but I think everyone has seen this by now).

On a side note, finally saw it (I know, it took long enough) but I really enjoyed the movie. I had already heard that prof x and Mags would split at the end of the movie, and I was pretty disappointed on hearing that, and while I still wish they had kept them together for at least one more movie, this one was done well enough that it didn't bother me. The relationship between Mags and Prof X was handled very well, and the acting was great. The only real criticism I have of the movie is that it moved a bit fast, and I wish we could have gotten them to prolong the split for one more movie just to better develop certain aspects.

Everything was done well, I just wish we could have gotten more of it.

Charles and Mystique: They had a very nice relationship, I just wish we had gotten more. It would have been more emotionally jarring if we got another full movie until these two parted ways.

Mystique and Beast: A nice subplot, but this one was a bit underdeveloped. I wanted to see more with this relationship.

Mystique and Magneto: ...This wasn't bad, but Mystique jumping into Mag's bed after talking to Beast was just...rushed. I didn't see the motivation, well I could a bit, but it was thin. The Mystique in first class hadn't transformed into the one who would be so willing to attempt to seduce a man. Magneto helped draw that out of her, and I liked it, but I thought that aspect was a bit sudden. Again, I wish we had just one more movie.

Charles and Erik: Again, this was handled very well. Great acting on both parts...I just wish they had stretched this for one more movie. I would have liked to have Magneto and Charles have a bit longer history before they have their rift. This movie was done so well I was still satisfied, but I really think they rushed this a bit too much.

Overall, a very good movie. I think probably my favorite X-men movie to date.

And the cameo with Wolverine was hilarious. Perfect.

 

[Visceral]

I can understand why Sony wants to keep the SM franchise going, but the fact that they're retelling the origin a little over a decade after SM1 really blows my mind. Who's idea was that?

especially when it was done well. people remember good movies. Most of the new audience that was brought on by batman begins has gone back to see the burton films, but those films never did an origin.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'd go way lower than that.

I'd say 200mil at best.

Despite the fanboy backlash people enjoyed and embraced SM1 and 2. Sony isn't just going to be able to just sweep them under the rug.

As for First Class:

Nobody was expecting record numbers but the movie should be having better legs than it's currently displaying. All of the successful reboots had good for action movies legs. X-Men: First Class is going to have worst legs than Thor and Thor is looking to have worst legs than X-Men. In other words, just because the legs are better than Wolverine's and X3's doesn't mean that they are good.

 

[Electrix]

Nobody was expecting record numbers but the movie should be having better legs than it's currently displaying. All of the successful reboots had good for action movies legs. X-Men: First Class is going to have worst legs than Thor and Thor is looking to have worst legs than X-Men. In other words, just because the legs are better than Wolverine's and X3's doesn't mean that they are good.

That's probably because of the competition this year. In the space of a month we've had Pirates 4, Hangover 2, X-Men, Super 8, Green Lantern, and we're getting Transformers next week.

If X-Men had Thor's spot it would have probably done better. Because of the restrictions and competition it got stuck with an average release date and followed two of the most successful movies of the summer so far (Pirates, Hangover). Plus is wasn't 3D, so the numbers for the other films are going to be inflated slightly.

At least it's going to do better than Green Lantern.

 

[Angamb]

Ive changed my WW boxoffice.

------------------------------------------------
SHBoard 'First Class BOXOFFICE' BET


Angamb:
- This Weekend: $300M Worldwide
- Next weekend: $310M
- Final WW BO: $350M


Superhero 101:
- Final WW BO: $320M


Sign up!
------------------------------------------------

Guys, add your bets, to see how many of us were right. t:

And to see if the final numbers surpassed our own expectations...

Just for fun

 

[danoyse]

I can understand why Sony wants to keep the SM franchise going, but the fact that they're retelling the origin a little over a decade after SM1 really blows my mind. Who's idea was that?

It crazy. I'm annoyed that they remade Footloose. But that movie is 27 years old and I first saw it when I was 10. So as annoyed as I am about it, I understand that there's a whole generation of kids who have never seen the original (although they should see that one instead of this crappy remake).

But we have kids under 10 who were around for the first Spiderman trilogy. They want new Spiderman movies, not a do-over already.

Kids do love Spiderman - when I saw that awful Broadway version the little boy sitting near us seemed to be the only person having a good time - so it will have an audience there, but I can't see most adults outside of the fanboys clamoring to see this.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

It crazy. I'm annoyed that they remade Footloose. But that movie is 27 years old and I first saw it when I was 10. So as annoyed as I am about it, I understand that there's a whole generation of kids who have never seen the original (although they should see that one instead of this crappy remake).

But we have kids under 10 who were around for the first Spiderman trilogy. They want new Spiderman movies, not a do-over already.

Kids do love Spiderman - when I saw that awful Broadway version the little boy sitting near us seemed to be the only person having a good time - so it will have an audience there, but I can't see most adults outside of the fanboys clamoring to see this.

And people wonder why "reboots" piss me off.

 

[Still Wynning]

And people wonder why "reboots" piss me off.

Technically, that would be a remake, which is, for the most part, usually just a cheap way of cashing in on the original product (like Footloose). However, there have been a few exceptions of remakes being better than the original. David Cronenberg's The Fly and John Carpenter's The Thing are both remakes of movies from the 1950's and are both considered to be superior to their originals.

A reboot suggests that there was possibly something wrong with the original, or the franchise went off the wrong track, and the goal is to wipe the slate clean and do something different the next time around. The Amazing Spider-Man is probably a good example of this.

I like to look at it this way. If you're doing a reboot/remake on something that was really good to begin with just to make a quick buck, then don't even bother remaking it. However, if the original product wasn't that good to begin with or had problems, and you are confident that you can improve on it, then go for it.

 

[marvelrobbins]

The only reboots I have seen that can be called better than original are Chris Nolan's batman films.I remain big fan of Tim Burton's 2 batman films.

I have always viewed the original Star Trek the best and that hasn't changed.For me
I will take Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnon James Bond Films over the Danial Craig
Bond films(I have never called Die Another Day one of the best film.And Connery may be best but Diamonds are Forever Is one of worst Bond films) I don't view the SPider-Man films In the same league as X-Men,X2,and First Class but It remains to be seen If the
Amazing Spider-Man will be any better.I may not even bother to see Man of Steel.I
doudt It will have the staying power of original Superman.I am glad so far they have laregly resisted doing complete reboot of X-Men.

 

[kedrell]

And people wonder why "reboots" piss me off.

I only dislike reboots if they are poorly thought out/executed. The concept of a reboot I like. It allows freedom to adapt without being contrained to what came before in film. Especially for those who didn't care for the previous take on a property. I'm looking forward to Webb's Spidey as much as I was Nolan's Batman Begins and Vaughn's XMFC. Hopefully, it'll be more like the former than the latter since the latter chickened out and didn't go full reboot at all.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Technically, that would be a remake, which is, for the most part, usually just a cheap way of cashing in on the original product (like Footloose). However, there have been a few exceptions of remakes being better than the original. David Cronenberg's The Fly and John Carpenter's The Thing are both remakes of movies from the 1950's and are both considered to be superior to their originals.

A reboot suggests that there was possibly something wrong with the original, or the franchise went off the wrong track, and the goal is to wipe the slate clean and do something different the next time around. The Amazing Spider-Man is probably a good example of this.

I like to look at it this way. If you're doing a reboot/remake on something that was really good to begin with just to make a quick buck, then don't even bother remaking it. However, if the original product wasn't that good to begin with or had problems, and you are confident that you can improve on it, then go for it.

Reboot, remake, they are the same thing in my eyes, they are voids of creativity that do nothing for anyone except weasel a quick buck for movie studios.

Yea, sometimes a really bad movie from a long time ago is remade and turned into a classic, something like Scarface... and in the superhero genre sometimes a reboot comes along and justifies itself like Nolan's Batman films, but just because it works in a couple occasions doesn't mean that every damned thing has to be remade, or rebooted.

The difference between a remake and a reboot is semantics to me. Either term is nothing more than a horrible trend that has existed in Hollywood forever, and unfortunately will continue forever, and only works in certain occasions. But there are exceptions to every rule.

The way I look at it is, if it worked the first time, then I don't need to see it redone, because what's there already worked, and if it -didn't- work the first time, then it's probably not something I care to see again anyways.

 

[Electrix]

Reboot, remake, they are the same thing in my eyes, they are voids of creativity that do nothing for anyone except weasel a quick buck for movie studios.

Not necessarily. Star Trek, Batman Begins and True Grit are all recent examples of reboots and remakes working, and working well.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Not necessarily. Star Trek, Batman Begins and True Grit are all recent examples of reboots and remakes working, and working well.

I could have lived without Star Trek - I have absolutely ZERO desire to see anyone other than the classic cast in those roles. If I want to watch Star Trek, I already have 6 movies and a TV show. I have no need or want to watch JJ Abrams (or anyone else) "freshen up" the story with some "new take" - and I haven't watched True Grit nor do I plan to. If I want to watch True Grit, it already existed. I don't need to see it again.

 

[JP]

Unfortunate.

 

[chaseter]

Nell, Nell, Nell.

 

[Downhere]

I could have lived without Star Trek - I have absolutely ZERO desire to see anyone other than the classic cast in those roles. If I want to watch Star Trek, I already have 6 movies and a TV show. I have no need or want to watch JJ Abrams (or anyone else) "freshen up" the story with some "new take" - and I haven't watched True Grit nor do I plan to. If I want to watch True Grit, it already existed. I don't need to see it again.

Wow, your missing out on some amazing movies. Star Trek (2009) was brilliant and True Grit (2010) was very good.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I've seen Star Trek. I wouldn't call it "brilliant". I enjoyed it of it's own merits. Although the only thing that really stood out to me was Leonard Nimoy, and it's attempt to at least somewhat connect to the real Star Trek. But as far as I'm concerned, it's not Star Trek. It's something else entirely and I will never consider it true Star Trek.

I've seen it. Now I can go back to pretending it doesn't exist and watch real Star Trek.

 

[Angamb]

nice discussion, guys...

but Can we go back to the topic and discuss possible final boxoffice of First Class? hehe

and sign the SHHype bet, come on! lol

 

[josh8]

To me, Star Trek [2009] felt very much like Star Trek... anyways.

I have no issues with reboots for superhero movies because with every year, movie technology gets better and better. My only problem is that they seem to be doing them too soon. Take Spider-man for example. I liked the first two films the first go around but not really anymore. I love the idea of taking it back to the beginning and bringing in Gwen Stacy (although I wonder if they are going to get to kill her off in a sequel since this is very much a franchise aimed at kids and adults). But it is WAY too soon to be making this movie.

As for XM:FC, I don't mind it at all and I don't think of it as a reboot. It sort of exists in the same universe as the first trilogy. I'm glad they went this direction because it would have been hard to make an X4 after what was done to the franchise with X3. You can definitely still tell a story with what's left, but X3 removed everything important and meaningful out of the X-Men world. An X4 would be like those comic book runs where the stories are ok, but really what's the point.

 

[josh8]

nice discussion, guys...

but Can we go back to the topic and discuss possible final boxoffice of First Class? hehe

and sign the SHHype bet, come on! lol

Agreed, but I haven't seen the Thursday numbers yet so not much to talk about!

Your betting game is hard! I think we all have the same tight range in our heads as to where the final B.O. will go. But I'll give it a shot...

Domestic: $150 million
Foreign: $195 million

Total WW: $345 million

See! I just "Price-is-Right"-ed your guess!