Apocalypse X-Men: Apocalypse Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the end of the day, Fox may have to release their cut from merchandising to Marvel. That is key. Its not like they are making any money off it anyways.

Give Marvel back 100% of merchandising revenue, and Fox benefits from the visibility of the characters.

Marvel is not going to do merchandising for the X-men movies, no matter how much the control the merchandising money. Especially with them ramping up their movie production.
 
I really wish some miracle of corporate synergy would happen so the X-Men and the Avengers could play together. It just seems silly at this point.
Once X-Men get their house in order I would LOVE to see it.
 
Well, what is stopping FOX from doing what Sony did with Spider-Man and let Marvel have creative control of their film development? Seems to me that FOX has a lot of pride and ego getting in the way.

I don't know if a Spidey type arrangement would work for any other character or group of characters. Disney was motivated to keep Peter as the world's most popular superhero so he continues to bring in a billion annually in licensing revenue. He remains a a huge BO attraction that can boost the take of the MCU films, and now that he's in the MCU he ain't ever going to leave.

Jackman's Wolverine and Mr. Pool have star power, but I doubt it would be worth it for Marvel to invest in X-Men films unless the Mouse was getting a major piece of the action
 
Marvel is not going to do merchandising for the X-men movies, no matter how much the control the merchandising money. Especially with them ramping up their movie production.

You do know Marvel sees more return from merchandising than they do their films right? Right now, they have to share their cut with Fox, which is why they are not making any toys. If lets go of their cut, Marvel will make toys, they did with Spider-Man.

Because what they would make with the merchandise will be more than what Fox will make from the films.
 
Marvel is not going to do merchandising for the X-men movies, no matter how much the control the merchandising money. Especially with them ramping up their movie production.

The chanes of disney ever doing merchandise for X-men films inless fox turns them over to Disney like sony did SPider-man is less than me voting for eather
hilary clinton or Donald Trump.which there is no chance.
 
i think what hurt this movie is it just felt generic like seriously a villain who wants to take over and cleanse the world didn't Ultron just do that

in trying to be more comicbooky they made something generic looking
 
Stars are irrelevant. What is relevant is brand. Harrison Ford doesn't do big numbers anymore. But put him in Star Wars or Indy, and suddenly the heavens open again.
But 20 years ago (when he was a star), you put Harrison Ford in a movie and at least people would be interested because is "the new Harrison Ford movie". Put an unknown there, and you have to compensate with good/better promotion. That's basically why they paid those actors big money.

Imagine how much money would have made The Martian without Damon, MI Rogue Nation without Cruise, The Revenant without DiCaprio
 
I don't know if a Spidey type arrangement would work for any other character or group of characters. Disney was motivated to keep Peter as the world's most popular superhero so he continues to bring in a billion annually in licensing revenue. He remains a a huge BO attraction that can boost the take of the MCU films, and now that he's in the MCU he ain't ever going to leave.

Jackman's Wolverine and Mr. Pool have star power, but I doubt it would be worth it for Marvel to invest in X-Men films unless the Mouse was getting a major piece of the action

Which is merchandising. X-Men is still one of Marvel's top brands, next to Spider-Man when it comes to the rogue gallery and storyline content. They can make money right now, but merchandising is what holds them back. If Fox lets go of merchandising, then the brand can rebuild.
 
Once X-Men get their house in order I would LOVE to see it.

I sure wouldn't.after the crap that was BVS merging 2 priopties i don't think it
good idea.plus there is possibilty X-men would be villains and Avengers
the heroes.plus who do you make it work.Marvel is replacing mutants with
Inhumans for MCU and short of some anomaly in space time how would you
get them together In a film.I am still curious how being on the CW will affect Supergirl especilly to do crossovers with CW exsisting DC shows.
 
But 20 years ago (when he was a star), you put Harrison Ford in a movie and at least people would be interested because is "the new Harrison Ford movie". Put an unknown there, and you have to compensate with good/better promotion. That's basically why they paid those actors big money.

Imagine how much money would have made The Martian without Damon, MI Rogue Nation without Cruise, The Revenant without DiCaprio
Leo and Scarjo are the movie stars these days. They have proven themselves without brands. Look up Lucy for Scarjo. It is insane.

Things have changed today. The Martian did fine, but it had nothing to do with Damon. Just like how Gravity had nothing to do with Bullock or Clooney. People didn't see Deadpool because of Reynolds. Well they did, but not because he is a "star".
 
Leo and Scarjo are the movie stars these days. They have proven themselves without brands. Look up Lucy for Scarjo. It is insane.

Things have changed today. The Martian did fine, but it had nothing to do with Damon. Just like how Gravity had nothing to do with Bullock or Clooney. People didn't see Deadpool because of Reynolds. Well they did, but not because he is a "star".
They did well cause they are good movies, but the stars provide promotion, that's all i'm saying. If those very same movie were done by unknows, actors or directors, same quality otherwise, the results would have been different, or at least would have required extra promotion to get the world out and convince people to give them a shot.
 
I sure wouldn't.after the crap that was BVS merging 2 priopties i don't think it
good idea.plus there is possibilty X-men would be villains and Avengers
the heroes.plus who do you make it work.Marvel is replacing mutants with
Inhumans for MCU and short of some anomaly in space time how would you
get them together In a film.I am still curious how being on the CW will affect Supergirl especilly to do crossovers with CW exsisting DC shows.

What the heck does Marvel have to do with BvS?
 
Speaking of stars, I feel like the only way Gambit is getting through development at Fox consists of seals clapping and repeating "But it's Channing Tatum! Green-light it!"
 
The chanes of disney ever doing merchandise for X-men films inless fox turns them over to Disney like sony did SPider-man is less than me voting for eather
hilary clinton or Donald Trump.which there is no chance.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Marvel is not going to spend resources on merchandising for a property they don't control. It doesn't matter even if they got 100% of the merchandise profits. X-men merchandise is not nearly as profitable as Spider-man merch. So, they are going to spend their resources on corporate synergy and their #1 seller. Neither of which applies to X-men.

Marvel is loosening up a bit on the X-men merch, but they aren't going to be getting a shelf in the toy eisle.
 
I really wish some miracle of corporate synergy would happen so the X-Men and the Avengers could play together. It just seems silly at this point.

I hope Fox will realize that they should treat Marvel as a partner not an enemy.
 
i think what hurt this movie is it just felt generic like seriously a villain who wants to take over and cleanse the world didn't Ultron just do that

in trying to be more comicbooky they made something generic looking

That's what Apocalypse does though. And you couldn't call a movie X-Men: Apocalypse (or even the originally considered Age of Apocalypse) unless there was some sense of there being an apocalypse.

Which of course begs the question of whether Apocalypse was the right choice of villain in the first place.

The amazing opening sequence suggests he was a good choice and that there was huge potential in the story, but of course it was never satisfactorily achieved through the rest of the movie.

There could have been other ways of telling the story. For instance, have his original horsemen entombed with him and awakened with him. He could capture Magneto and attempt to possess him, or siphon off his powers (like the Zaladane storyline) to cause world destruction. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

And, of course, this ominous box office performance makes my call for an Extended Edition Blu-ray look more and more likely. They'll neeed to recoup that cash! A longer cut already exists, as the theatrical version was the result of editing that down...
 
You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Marvel is not going to spend resources on merchandising for a property they don't control. It doesn't matter even if they got 100% of the merchandise profits. X-men merchandise is not nearly as profitable as Spider-man merch. So, they are going to spend their resources on corporate synergy and their #1 seller. Neither of which applies to X-men.

Marvel is loosening up a bit on the X-men merch, but they aren't going to be getting a shelf in the toy eisle.

if fox gave up all share to film merchandize and marvel still doesn't want to
use merchandize then what good is a deal for fox.
 
I hope Fox will realize that they should treat Marvel as a partner not an enemy.

marvel sees fox as the enemy according to stories on marvel's CEO.

even so.disney is marvel's competion.few corporations see other corporations as partner.
 
I hope Fox will realize that they should treat Marvel as a partner not an enemy.

Considering that they seem to be fairly cooperative on the TV show in development, I don't think there is as much bad blood as people say. That said, given the rumors of problems between Marvel and Sony working together, I'm not certain Fox is eager to partner up when they don't need to.
 
They did well cause they are good movies, but the stars provide promotion, that's all i'm saying. If those very same movie were done by unknows, actors or directors, same quality otherwise, the results would have been different, or at least would have required extra promotion to get the world out and convince people to give them a shot.
The first Hunger Games didn't have a star, it created one. The people who did the majority of the leg work for TFA were the new cast who were not stars.

Brand is what is important. You get people excited about the brand. And that doesn't really involve stars.
 
That's what Apocalypse does though. And you couldn't call a movie X-Men: Apocalypse (or even the originally considered Age of Apocalypse) unless there was some sense of there being an apocalypse.

Which of course begs the question of whether Apocalypse was the right choice of villain in the first place.

The amazing opening sequence suggests he was a good choice and that there was huge potential in the story, but of course it was never satisfactorily achieved through the rest of the movie.

There could have been other ways of telling the story. For instance, have his original horsemen entombed with him and awakened with him. He could capture Magneto and attempt to possess him, or siphon off his powers (like the Zaladane storyline) to cause world destruction. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

And, of course, this ominous box office performance makes my call for an Extended Edition Blu-ray look more and more likely. They'll neeed to recoup that cash! A longer cut already exists, as the theatrical version was the result of editing that down...

I doudt it.studios rarely do that for disappointments at box office.WB wouldn't even do director's cut of batman forever.
 
if fox gave up all share to film merchandize and marvel still doesn't want to
use merchandize then what good is a deal for fox.

There is no point in such a deal. Marvel took the original Sony deal because it was extremely profitable for them. Marvel would have no need to take such a deal from Fox.

Not that Fox needs to make a similar deal. As they have enough movies in the pipeline to keep the license from expiring.
 
Considering that they seem to be fairly cooperative on the TV show in development, I don't think there is as much bad blood as people say. That said, given the rumors of problems between Marvel and Sony working together, I'm not certain Fox is eager to partner up when they don't need to.
Spidey is worth the hassle. I don't think the same about the X-Men, especially with how Fox has been.
 
and people try to say noone wants X-men to fail and be given to disney

I'll cop to wanting this movie to fail, since I'm tired of FOX'S MOSTLY unfaithful adaption of the source material and their constant focus on the same damn 4 characters (3 of whom, aren't even that popular). However, I am NOT saying that I want the movie franchise to be "given to Disney", but I am saying that I want FOX to strike up a deal with Marvel/Disney (without FOX loosing the rights to the X-Men movie franchise) similar to the Sony deal that will reboot the X-Men movie franchise as part of the MCU and be more faithful to the source material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"