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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wrong. :rolleyes:

I don't "hate" the X-Men films. The X-Men films hate ME.

They've never given me the characters that I love. They focus on things the studio loves for financial gain. So no, it is FOX who is repudiating fans like me by continuously churning out s****y CBMs year after year.

And YOU, marvelrobbins, are threatened by the success of the MCU. It's all you talk about. Perhaps it's because you work for FOX? Is your profit share getting decimated by these poor performing "hero" films? If so, no need to "moan" about it. Send your resume to Disney--life may be better there. :cool:

Quoted for the truth.
 
This whole idea of MCU fans hating Fox is such a ridiculous fallacy. X-Men have been my favourite comic property since childhood, there's nothing wrong with me wanting the franchise to have "the MCU approach" AKA a more faithful adaptation that stays true to the spirit and integrity of the comic material. Fox aren't giving me that.

Do I want them to be part of the MCU? I'm 50/50, it's not a deal breaker. But do I want them brought to screen with as much love and care the MCU movies are? Damn right.
 
Apparently a faithful approach that respects the source material = MCU approach now.
 
This whole idea of MCU fans hating Fox is such a ridiculous fallacy. X-Men have been my favourite comic property since childhood, there's nothing wrong with me wanting the franchise to have "the MCU approach" AKA a more faithful adaptation that stays true to the spirit and integrity of the comic material. Fox aren't giving me that.

Do I want them to be part of the MCU? I'm 50/50, it's not a deal breaker. But do I want them brought to screen with as much love and care the MCU movies are? Damn right.

Quoted for both the truth and because I agree with you.
 
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.

In all honesty, which source because X-Men has numerous sources to take inspiration from (Uncanny, All New, Astonishing, Ultimate, 90's cartoon, Evolution, Extreme, New, etc.), which means that there will never be a perfect 100% adaptation without someone whining that its not what they wanted or expected it to be.
 
This whole idea of MCU fans hating Fox is such a ridiculous fallacy. X-Men have been my favourite comic property since childhood, there's nothing wrong with me wanting the franchise to have "the MCU approach" AKA a more faithful adaptation that stays true to the spirit and integrity of the comic material. Fox aren't giving me that.

Do I want them to be part of the MCU? I'm 50/50, it's not a deal breaker. But do I want them brought to screen with as much love and care the MCU movies are? Damn right.

Its not all fans, its just an extremely vocal minority that you can find on IMDb or comic book movie.
 
In all honesty, which source because X-Men has numerous sources to take inspiration from (Uncanny, All New, Astonishing, Ultimate, 90's cartoon, Evolution), which means that there will never be a perfect 100% adaptation without someone whining that its not what they wanted or expected it to be.

No one said anything about doing a panel by frame Watchmenesque adaptation of X-men. People want the essence and the core of the characters and stories faithfully rendered and augmented.
 
In all honesty, which source because X-Men has numerous sources to take inspiration from (Uncanny, All New, Astonishing, Ultimate, 90's cartoon, Evolution), which means that there will never be a perfect 100% adaptation without someone whining that its not what they wanted or expected it to be.

As much as the classic MU comic book version (from 1963 to 19991) and the 90's X-MEN cartoon as they can, but leave out and/or change the bad ideas from those stories. I also wouldn't mind seeing a movie that was based off of WOLVERINE AND THE X-MEN cartoon (minus Wolverine being the main focus) or X-MEN EVOLUTION (minus the school and the X-Men's secret ID's being outed to the public and Storm and Wolverine being teachers).
 
No one said anything about doing a panel by frame Watchmenesque adaptation of X-men. People want the essence and the core of the characters and stories faithfully rendered and augmented.

Quoted for the truth.
 
No one said anything about doing a panel by frame Watchmenesque adaptation of X-men. People want the essence and the core of the characters and stories faithfully rendered and augmented.

Of course it doesn't have to be Watchmenesque, what I'm saying is that for example they can follow the Ultimate story line and some people will still whine because they wanted the Astonishing version adapted instead.
 
It's time for a deck shuffle for the X-Men franchise. These numbers prove it.
 
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.

Fox (and you) don't understand that when Marvel put X-Men merchandises and toys on the shelves, more people will buy them and in turn those people may become more interested in X-Men movies. It's called advertising.
 
Apocalypse is about as comic accurate as any MCU movie.
 
The bottom line is Halle Berry is much bigger household name than any of them--and that is a fact. Hell, Jennifer Lawrence is a bigger name too. So what exactly are you debating here?

I am debating that it matters for selling movie tickets. Research shows that there is little association between the participation of movie stars in a film and box office performance. So, I disagree that star power is the most important problem and that hiring A-listers is the key to performing better at the box office.

"So half of the films in this top 15 list had A-listers and half didn't. Are there any X-Men films on that list? I didn't think so. Where is the relevance?"

It is relevant because it shows that having a movie star is not essential or even relevant to performing strongly at the box office. You argue that the lack of star power is the problem. That would seemingly suggest that having more movie stars is the key to boosting box office.

Yet, do movies with movie stars consistently fare better than those without them? Not really.

Gavin Polone in "Vulture"

"My review of past box-office performance shows little correlation between “star vehicles” and hits. Looking at last year’s top 100 films at the U.S. box office (excluding animated pictures, which don’t succeed or fail because of movie stars’ voices, and sequels, which shouldn’t count as star vehicles), I see 21 starless films that, given their reported production budgets, probably made money. The list includes Thor, Planet of the Apes, Captain America, The Help, Bridesmaids, Super 8, Immortals, War Horse, and Dolphin Tale. Using that same criteria, I see 21 star vehicles (movies led by someone who, in the recent past, had starred in another hit movie) that made money. Then I looked at the probable money-losers in the top 100. As far as I can tell, there was just one starless movie that lost money, Sucker Punch, while there were sixteen money-losers with touted, proven names, including Cowboys & Aliens, Red Riding Hood, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close."

Star vehicles: 21 movies that made a profit and 16 that didn't
Movies without stars: 21 that make a profit and 1 that did not

So, having a movie star is not necessary to making a successful movie and it does not seem to help all that much.
That suggests that having a story that people want to see leads to strong performance, and having a movie star makes little difference. Having a name that people know will not sell movie tickets if the story does not appeal, and movies with appealing stories have succeeded without any marquee names.

My point is having a name everyone knows does not sell that many movie tickets. Instead, having a story that people like and want sells movie tickets.

Instead of focusing on getting names that people know, Fox should focus on telling interesting stories that audiences have not seen before and doing so well. Getting a household name on the A-list to give a mediocre performance in an uninteresting story would not lead to dramatically better profits for Fox.
 
Last edited:
Apparently a faithful approach that respects the source material = MCU approach now.

and civil war had as much in common with the source material as DOFP did

we need to stop acting like mcu is so damn faithful when its not
 
We all know this comes down to character and development. X-Men doesn't deliver on too many of its characters and throws the rest down the drain so they can market a new batch of mutants without any interest of development.

More characters were murdered or wasted in the past two films then probably any franchise. People are tired of it, and they have not learned their lesson from X3. In fact they just hired the guy responsible for that film.

The list is far too large now, it took 16 years to give Cyclops anything. It's too little too late, and is showing.
 
Apocalypse is about as comic accurate as any MCU movie.

That is a good point and not without merit but whilst I think the plot is comic accurate, I think it's failed to capture the heart and soul of the series and that's a huge failing in my eyes.

It's still too insular, too obsessed with three characters at the expense of many. Iconic fan favourites are once again sidelined with minimal dialogue. Though they're making improvements, the sense of family just hasn't translated onscreen and the sense of fun is borderline non-existent. Whilst the series has always had the pathos and allegories at its core, they still had fun with these characters. There was still a spirit and an essence that just hasn't made its way onscreen.
 
^its the end of the trilogy of the guys from first class of coruse they are gonna get the bulk of development
 
Apparently a faithful approach that respects the source material = MCU approach now.

Well, let's see: Marvel now has the Top 4 CBM films grossing over $1 Billion EACH. And the MCU is a 10 billion dollar franchise overall. All of this accomplished in just 8 years. That means they're doing something right. Not everything, mind you. But something. In fact, a lot of somethings. They're clicking and connecting with both the fans AND the GA.

Meanwhile, FOX's X-Men: Apocalypse just opened with $65 million. Just a little more than Fantastic Four did back in 2005. Whoooooo. Hooooo. :whatever:
 
and civil war had as much in common with the source material as DOFP did

we need to stop acting like mcu is so damn faithful when its not

It won't stop until people stop using them for arguments and debates such as why their movies do well and are better than others.
 
^its the end of the trilogy of the guys from first class of coruse they are gonna get the bulk of development

That doesn't mean giving characters like Psylocke, Archangel, Storm, Jubilee, etc. next to no speaking part and really nothing to show for. Singer could have given them something but chose to ignore them.
 
That doesn't mean giving characters like Psylocke, Archangel, Storm, Jubilee, etc. next to no speaking part and really nothing to show for. Singer could have given them something but chose to ignore them.

Exactly. There is no excuse at this point.
 
It won't stop until people stop using them for arguments and debates such as why their movies do well and are better than others.

Being faithful to the source material means more than just copying the comics verbatim; it's about honoring the characters with essence from the comic book, giving them development, and not just focus on a small group of heroes while ignoring the rest for several movies.
 
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 think statistical analyses find effects on the order of 3-15M for having an A-lister vs a typical actor. It's kind of a zero-sum game for studios because they the benefits and costs essential offset each other.

The reason why studios often pay big salaries is because the executives want cover if a movie flops. When they are in meetings afterward, they can say, "I could not have made a mistake by greenlighting this movie because JLaw/Damon/etc. is in it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"