Days of Future Past Will this redeem the franchise.

[Sweet Xstacy]

I never understood this argument. To me, if a movie makes back double its budget, then it was a commercial success.

You also have to take into account DVD and Blu-ray sales. If these movies. Were as bad as others have made them out to be, they wouldn't have made any more money in the home entertainment market.

Pretty much. That's a fair assessment. Nobody knows what the marketing costs. That is never disclosed. It could be 20 million or it could be 100 million. That's why the general rule is double the production budget. Wolvering made more than double it's production budget worldwide. You have to include those numbers. Money is money.

 

[chaseter]

I never understood this argument. To me, if a movie makes back double its budget, then it was a commercial success.

You also have to take into account DVD and Blu-ray sales. If these movies. Were as bad as others have made them out to be, they wouldn't have made any more money in the home entertainment market.

Double its budget is for domestic take.

Only on here will people take a film breaking even or losing money in the domestic market after marketing costs as successful because of dvd sales. So that somehow makes up for the horrible box office which means that the movie was good???

That means that Waterworld wasn't a flop because of it's worldwide take and vhs/dvd sales Waterworld was successful! Can't wait for the sequel.

Money is money...but why make ****ty movies and make less money when you can make better movies and make more money? If money is the name of the game, Wolverine could have made double what it made had it been a great movie. The quality and success of previous movies also affects the success of future movies. So if you continue to make ****ty movies then that affects the take of future movies. First Class will make less money because of how terrible Wolverine was and how badly everyone was let down by Wolverine and X3.

 

[Snikt]

Double its budget is for domestic take.

Only on here will people take a film breaking even or losing money in the domestic market after marketing costs as successful because of dvd sales. So that somehow makes up for the horrible box office which means that the movie was good???

That means that Waterworld wasn't a flop because of it's worldwide take and vhs/dvd sales Waterworld was successful! Can't wait for the sequel.

Money is money...but why make ****ty movies and make less money when you can make better movies and make more money? If money is the name of the game, Wolverine could have made double what it made had it been a great movie. The quality and success of previous movies also affects the success of future movies. So if you continue to make ****ty movies then that affects the take of future movies. First Class will make less money because of how terrible Wolverine was and how badly everyone was let down by Wolverine and X3.

I'm curious though, how many movies actually make back double it's budget in the domestic revenue?

Is it alot, somewhere in the middle or not very many.

I agree that if a movie is awesome, it will make money (for the most part). I'm not saying a commercial success means it's a great movie (Wolverine), but it stil made quite a bit of money.

 

[Snikt]

Another note, Star Trek 2009 made a domestic profit of $257 million. It's budget was $150 million (these stats are on boxofficemojo.com btw).

And it made $385 million Wolrdwide. Does this make it a disappointment because it didn't clear the $300 million mark in the USA?

Same with Spider-Man 2. $200 million budget, domestic gross of $373 million. It never hit the $400 million mark in the USA. Yet it made $783 million worldwide. Is this not a success?

 

[Deaths Head II]

I never understood this argument. To me, if a movie makes back double its budget, then it was a commercial success.

A movie usually has to make double it's budget just to break even because of distribution and advertising. And they put in a certain amount of money with certain expectations of what they're going to get back out. I doubt they were looking forward to just breaking even after rushing the product out so much and then making up for it with DVD sales and merchandising. And it's after X3 that Fox decided that things were getting too costly and it would be more profitable to move the series into spinoffs. And after Wolverine came out, they quickly abandoned the X-Men Origins line altogether and all the films coming out now are ignoring that film. If Fox were completely happy with the franchises' success I doubt this stuff would've happen.

For me it all boils down to Fox's reaction and they sure weren't eager to pick up on the "successes" of Wolverine and X3. You can argue about the numbers all day but in both cases they decided it was time to drastically change course after the film was released. If Wolverine was a success you would think the goal would be to replicate that success and not try to act like the film never happened. How often does a film in a series even get selectively ignored except when it's viewed as a disappointment in some manner? That's reserved for films like Superman 3 and 4 usually.

 

[Sweet Xstacy]

A movie usually has to make double it's budget just to break even because of distribution and advertising. And they put in a certain amount of money with certain expectations of what they're going to get back out. I doubt they were looking forward to just breaking even after rushing the product out so much and then making up for it with DVD sales and merchandising. And it's after X3 that Fox decided that things were getting too costly and it would be more profitable to move the series into spinoffs. And after Wolverine came out, they quickly abandoned the X-Men Origins line altogether and all the films coming out now are ignoring that film. If Fox were completely happy with the franchises' success I doubt this stuff would've happen.

For me it all boils down to Fox's reaction and they sure weren't eager to pick up on the "successes" of Wolverine and X3. You can argue about the numbers all day but in both cases they decided it was time to drastically change course after the film was released. If Wolverine was a success you would think the goal would be to replicate that success and not try to act like the film never happened. How often does a film in a series even get selectively ignored except when it's viewed as a disappointment in some manner? That's reserved for films like Superman 3 and 4 usually.

Now I can agree with this. Numbers were disappointing for sure. I just don't think they were pathetic.

 

[chaseter]

What would you call making $29 million more than your budget and after marketing costs you lose money?

Another note, Star Trek 2009 made a domestic profit of $257 million. It's budget was $150 million (these stats are on boxofficemojo.com btw).

And it made $385 million Wolrdwide. Does this make it a disappointment because it didn't clear the $300 million mark in the USA?

Same with Spider-Man 2. $200 million budget, domestic gross of $373 million. It never hit the $400 million mark in the USA. Yet it made $783 million worldwide. Is this not a success?

I have no idea who started the double domestic to gauge success formula. A film that costs $200 million compared to a film that costs $100 million and open in the same number of screens should have the same distribution costs. It is just a general rule of thumb that money after double the budget means that the film was a success and everything afterwards is pure profit.

Yes it made money but it made a hell of a lot less than the studio was expecting and didn't even turn a profit domestic after marketing. The general audience, critics, and most fans thought the movie was bad. That coupled with it's sad box office compared to its budget means that it was not a success.

I don't look at worldwide numbers because the worldwide market is too volatile and very unpredictable. Waterworld made its budget back in the worldwide market but it bombed here in America so that movie is not seen as a success.

I don't see this movie making a ton of money, around $200 million, even if it is an amazing movie because of the stigma of two bad past movies. This franchise can get up to the $300's if they continue to rise in quality. X3 would have made $300+ but it was a mediocre movie and word of mouth and non repeat viewings hurt it. It didn't have good legs.

 

[Phoenix_Flare]

I don't think X-franchise was in disarray like Batman after Batman & Robin, even thought X3 & XMO:W weren't a hit with us fans it still made $ than their predecessors, so finacial wise this franchise is good. I think the problem is the last few movies was that the action & mediocre plot tried to tell a story and it failed.

I think the people in control of this franchise realized wall-to-wall action doesn't tell a good story and they want to go back to what made X1 and X2 a major success

 

[Wolverine1988]

Exactly, X3 made more than any of the previous X-men movies and the Wolverine while considered bad, still made more than the first X-men film.

 

[Ponyboy]

The very title of the thread assumes that X-Men 3 undid the validity of the franchise (X1 and X2)...?

If that's the case, I sure hope this film is solid and breathes some new life into it. And is this just a one off prequel or do they plan on doing more?

 

[Ponyboy]

Exactly, X3 made more than any of the previous X-men movies and the Wolverine while considered bad, still made more than the first X-men film.

Better marketing and advertising for The Last Stand because there was more money for the series after the success(es) of the first two. Not only that, but the 3rd film had a massive budget compared to the first film. When you look at the grosses from that standpoint, it wasn't that much more financially successful than the first.

 

[Glutton]

I get the feeling this movie is gonna be between X1 & X2 as far as quality goes which is really great for me.
It really can't be as bad as X3 or Origins which means a return to form.

 

[BMM]

Better marketing and advertising for The Last Stand because there was more money for the series after the success(es) of the first two. Not only that, but the 3rd film had a massive budget compared to the first film. When you look at the grosses from that standpoint, it wasn't that much more financially successful than the first.

The Last Stand also had the added benefit of being the highly anticipated sequel to the very well-received X2. Even without advertising, people were already looking forward to X-Men 3.

As for First Class redeeming the franchise, I think it could be one of the best X-Men movies yet. Unfortunately, I think it has an uphill battle and, even if it turns out to be great, probably won't restore the X-Men franchise to what it once was from a popularity stand point. It may be a step in the right direction, though. We'll know in a month.

 

[psylockolussus]

X3 could have been more so much successful, if the movie was so much better.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

If they included half of the deleted scenes they took out of X3, polished them up a bit, that would've not only added 5-6 minutes to the movie, but it would've improved some of the pacing and cohesiveness of the movie.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I think most of X3's deleted scenes would've barely made a difference. The only one I really think would be a drastic improvement was the alternate Rogue ending so they would've removed the theatrical cut's message of "change who you are so you can impress some boy."

 

[Alientraveller]

I remember on the commentary they mentioned having Leech around would nullify Rogue's powers so she could kiss Iceman... so why didn't they do that?

 

[psylockolussus]

If they included half of the deleted scenes they took out of X3, polished them up a bit, that would've not only added 5-6 minutes to the movie, but it would've improved some of the pacing and cohesiveness of the movie.

I agree, plus X3 was too short IMO.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

Well, look, I don't think X3 was too short, time-wise, but like I said, it would've benefited from having more time spent here and there to help add tension, emotion, and correct the pacing in the movie.

I'm not saying the movie would be better in general, but at least it would've been perceived as having a more conjoined and solid movie and a little less of a mess.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

X3 doesn't really need redeeming...But Wolverine Origins is just a horrible movie.

 

[By your Command]

If they included half of the deleted scenes they took out of X3, polished them up a bit, that would've not only added 5-6 minutes to the movie, but it would've improved some of the pacing and cohesiveness of the movie.

The only scene I would have added was the bearded Magneto scene, and maybe that weird scene where Storm is explaining to Xavier that she was treated like a goddess where she came from, it wouldn't have done much for the movie but just like you said pacing and cohesiveness. But the thing that's almost sad watching is some of those previz scenes from the X3 DVD, talk about the movie that could have been.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

X3 doesn't really need redeeming...But Wolverine Origins is just a horrible movie.

I wouldn't go so far to call it horrible, but it was definitely mediocre at best.

 

[seifergt]

X3 and Wolverine = yuck IMO. Although I'm not on board with this movie, and I wish they would start fresh with the original first class, I cannot express how much I like they are making an xmen movie that won't feature wolverine as 70% of the movie.

 

[X-Maniac]

If FC isn't a massive success, it's still a step in the right direction. The main problem it faces is all the other movies coming out in this very crowded year. So we need some big, mainstream advertising to get people aware of it.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

People say they didn't like Wolverine at the protagonist of the movies, yet they're usually the first to also criticize the success of an X-Men movie where he's not included...