Apocalypse X-Men: Apocalypse Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 5

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]515267[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]515193[/split]

 

[Matt]

Yeap, The Wolverine is a weird case, I'm not sure how to analyze how X3, Origins, FC, The Wolverine and DoFP all affected each other, but if Wolverine, at least, is not a box office saviour, maybe is not a requirement either.

I think all things equal, audiences generally prefer an X-Men movie with Wolverine. He is the most recognizable character of the franchise and has been played wonderfully by Hugh Jackman for nearly 20 years. He is a staple of the franchise that I think audiences generally want to see. But like you said, I do not think he can unilaterally either save a movie or crush it.

But I firmly believe that GA loves the OT, or at the very least they are really put off by not being able to make heads or tails of continuity (specially with Mystique)

I dunno. I mean, X1 is nearly 20 years old. The people who were young when it came out, would be nostalgic for it, etc are, by and large, aged out of that coveted 16-30 demographic. A new generation makes up the prime movie going audience and I think First Class is their new norm.

I don't think it's really fatigue as people getting bored or growing tired of superhero movies, as monetary fatigue: each year they have to pay for more and more superhero movies and all kind of fantasy movies as well, and there is a limit to how much money can be made overall in the box office. But I don't think people are really that tired of superhero movies: BvS might be a dud, but the OW numbers were good, people wanted to see it, and CW had a strong OW, with not so great but still respectable legs , and might end up as the 3rd or 4th DOM Marvel movie ever. All of that in 2 months with 2 pretty similar (in theme) movies.

I dunno. Time will tell. I still think Infinity War is going to be the real test.

Blockbusters have been like that for years now. It's rare that a movie makes it past 2 weeks, #1 at the box office.

And I agree that it's because that TV has gotten better, and that it doesn't take a year for a movie to go from theater to home viewing. Batman v. Superman came out in March and it will be on downloadable this month. That's a little over 3 months.

True, true. It is also important to keep in mind that, in the past 20 years, in the post-Sopranos era (if you will), TV has surpassed film in terms of quality of storytelling. It is a medium that allows audiences to understand characters better, to gain a better understanding and investment in them, etc. In the post-Game of Thrones era, it has, in some cases, even surpassed film in terms of spectacle and scale. Factor in that with the social media era being what it is, TV invites weekly speculation, theorizing, and interaction...it has just become a more comprehensive and readily available medium and in many ways has surpassed film. I think that plays a big role in the diminishing returns of film.

 

[Kanon]

I dunno. I mean, X1 is nearly 20 years old. The people who were young when it came out, would be nostalgic for it, etc are, by and large, aged out of that coveted 16-30 demographic. A new generation makes up the prime movie going audience and I think First Class is their new norm.

I guess that would be undeniable in normal reboot situations, like Spider-Man, but X-Men made a recast + soft reboot that prevents the new generation of audiences to claim this new incarnation as their own.

 

[Matt]

I guess that would be undeniable in normal reboot situations, like Spider-Man, but X-Men made a recast + soft reboot that prevents the new generation of audiences to claim this new incarnation as their own.

Yeah, that is fair, and I think that Days of Future Past is going to prove a thorn in Fox's side in that regard. They tried to have their cake and eat it too, when in actuality, they laid the groundwork for a solid reboot franchise (First Class), but then immediately ran back to the original continuity and used time travel to create a confusing and mixed continuity in some weird attempt at a soft reboot. But then, rather than moving forward with the reboot continuity, they make another prequel that shows no affect of the reboot, introduces characters whose age, role, etc doesn't really make sense (even with the reboot) and has just kinda left the audience a bit confused.

 

[JEM]

Rebooted a franchise is simple, a potentiel universe is different. I thought Wolverine 3 was just a conclusion for Hugh Jackman but it could set up storyline for others movies (X23, Sinister, X-Force ect). We could say the same thing for WB, they can't reboot after BVS because when you try to build a universe, it 's difficult to stop.

 

[Matt]

Rebooted a franchise is simple, a potentiel universe is different. I thought Wolverine 3 was just a conclusion for Hugh Jackman but it could set up storyline for others movies (X23, Sinister, X-Force ect).

The problem is that Fox decided to universe build half way through the franchise. I think if Fox's goal is to build a full universe, the smart play is to let Wolverine 3 close out the franchise and then do a full reboot (sans Deadpool, which should be an alternate universe story anyway).

 

[JEM]

Yeah but the question isn't what it should be but what it is. Wolverine seems very mysterious project and they seems take long time to cast X23. Maybe a crucial character for next. Besides, New Mutant could be in production sooner than later. If thr rumor is true Shipp and Mccavoy are in, so we have to wait and see.

 

[Matt]

Yeah but the question isn't what it should be but what it is. Wolverine seems very mysterious project and they seems take long time to cast X23. Maybe a crucial character for next. I can't wait to hear news about New Mutant too. If thr rumor is true Shipp and Mccavoy are in, so we have to wait and see.

If Fox's goal is to rebuild the franchise/universe around the New Mutants and X23, then I think Fox is going to be in for a rude awakening on the scale of Fantastic Four.

 

[Zarex]

If Fox's goal is to rebuild the franchise/universe around the New Mutants and X23, then I think Fox is going to be in for a rude awakening on the scale of Fantastic Four.

Depends on the budget. A series of sub $100M films set in modern times featuring Deadpool, X-Force & New Mutants along with some of the OT cast members could do alright.

 

[GuestStar2004]

X-Men: Apocalypse has made $65.89M after 4 days in China

 

[metaphysician]

How about this idea: don't ask Singer to do another X-Men megablockbuster. Ask Singer to do a smaller X-Men movie, focused on a small set of characters given time to develop as characters.

Imagine Singer doing an adaptation of one of the many Wolverine and Kitty Pryde stories, where the drama is not Whether We Save The World, but about the surrogate family relationship and how their attitudes contrast in solving a problem.

 

[TheVileOne]

65 percent drop for X-Men is pretty terrible when it underperformed for the opening.

 

[Matt]

How about this idea: don't ask Singer to do another X-Men megablockbuster. Ask Singer to do a smaller X-Men movie, focused on a small set of characters given time to develop as characters.

Imagine Singer doing an adaptation of one of the many Wolverine and Kitty Pryde stories, where the drama is not Whether We Save The World, but about the surrogate family relationship and how their attitudes contrast in solving a problem.

I'd rather not have Singer at all. He lacks the imagination to do superhero movies. Especially in the post-Avengers era.

 

[JEM]

If Fox's goal is to rebuild the franchise/universe around the New Mutants and X23, then I think Fox is going to be in for a rude awakening on the scale of Fantastic Four.

I don't think X23 will have solo film but she could be a character for X-Force. I remember Tim Miller said he wants Deadpool fight to X23.
IMO, New Mutant will not replace X-Men but could show different side of the universe (horror, magic).

 

[DavidHaller]

I'd rather not have Singer at all. He lacks the imagination to do superhero movies. Especially in the post-Avengers era.

lol he does NOT lack imagination. he only lacks the things you are particularly looking for in a blockbuster summer movie.

Let's not pretend that the Avenger's movies have done anything creative or imaginative. They are medicore Disney movies at best which make money. That's the only thing which gives these movies any relevancy besides the fact that the produced a shared universe. but most of these Disney movies suffer because of this 'shared universe idea'.

"Civil War" is clearly not better than "Days of Future Past"!

 

[Smilodon]

lol he does NOT lack imagination. he only lacks the things you are particularly looking for in a blockbuster summer movie.

Let's not pretend that the Avenger's movies have done anything creative or imaginative. They are medicore Disney movies at best which make money. That's the only thing which gives these movies any relevancy besides the fact that the produced a shared universe. but most of these Disney movies suffer because of this 'shared universe idea'.

"Civil War" is clearly not better than "Days of Future Past"!

Yeah, which is imagination. The Avengers in one film have done more as superheroes than the X-Men have done in 16 years, and that's coming from someone who enjoys these films more than any other superhero franchise. They're visually inert compared to how dynamic the Avengers are. That's what people are knocking on.

Of course, different strokes for different folks. DOFP was fine as it was. But to say the Avengers are unimaginative and uncreative is some grasping at straws. Especially as other studios try to mimic what they've done.

 

[YoungBlood]

Yeah, which is imagination. The Avengers in one film have done more as superheroes than the X-Men have done in 16 years, and that's coming from someone who enjoys these films more than any other superhero franchise. They're visually inert compared to how dynamic the Avengers are. That's what people are knocking on.

Of course, different strokes for different folks. DOFP was fine as it was. But to say the Avengers are unimaginative and uncreative is some grasping at straws. Especially as other studios try to mimic what they've done.

Avengers is not uncreative and unimaginative.
It may be shallow and have lo replay value now, but I will defend the film for being creative because Whedon accomplished that.
Now Ultron on the other hand..........

 

[DavidHaller]

cinema studios surely don't copy them for their creativity! lol that's hilarious! they are copying them because they are dull shallow mainstream ******** and sell tickets! I enjoyed Civil War a lot. But please let's not pretend this movie did anything special what Singer hasn't done before. It was a totally fine action movie for a shallow mass audience. Nothing more!

Marvel formular: cocky white males save the world (+ Black Panther for a change)

Singer's action scenes on the other hand are timeless! Nightcrawler's White House scene and Quicksilver's Kitchen Scene **** by far on everything Disney has done with the Avengers!

I would even argue that the Russo Brothers shifted the overall tone of the Marvel movies again back to quite a realistic direction similar to what Singer did with the X-Men.

 

[Raiden]

Yeah, which is imagination. The Avengers in one film have done more as superheroes than the X-Men have done in 16 years, and that's coming from someone who enjoys these films more than any other superhero franchise. They're visually inert compared to how dynamic the Avengers are. That's what people are knocking on.

Of course, different strokes for different folks. DOFP was fine as it was. But to say the Avengers are unimaginative and uncreative is some grasping at straws. Especially as other studios try to mimic what they've done.

Avengers is so unimaginative that all the movie studios are rushing out their own version of the cinematic universe including Fox and WB. BTW Avengers got 92 on RT while DOFP got 91.

 

[YoungBlood]

cinema studios surely don't copy them for their creativity! lol that's hilarious! they are copying them because they are dull shallow mainstream ******** and sell tickets! I enjoyed Civil War a lot. But please let's not pretend this movie did anything special what Singer hasn't done before. It was a totally fine action movie for a shallow mass audience. Nothing more!

Marvel formular: cocky white males save the world.

Singer's action scenes on the other hand are timeless! Nightcrawler's White House scene and Quicksilver's Kitchen Scene **** by far on everything Disney has done with the Avengers!

I would even argue that the Russo Brothers shifted the overall tone of the Marvel movies again back to quite a realistic direction similar to what Singer did with the X-Men.

Ok, I actually agree with that.

 

[GuestStar2004]

The avengers is mindless action, singer doesn't really like mindless action so thats pretty much the difference but most will complain if they do not get enough action and complain if they get to much.

 

[DavidHaller]

The avengers is mindless action, singer doesn't really like mindless action so thats pretty much the difference but most will complain if they do not get enough action and complain if they get to much.

...and I am totally guilty for that myself! lol I love "Days of Future Past" but this movie left me wanting SO MUCH MORE action in the final! I wanted to stay 20 minutes longer in the future to see the X-Men fight!

And judging by "X-Men Apocalypse" I guess Singer unfortuantely decided that mindless (bad) action scenes are his new favorite style as a director. What a disappointment...

 

[JEM]

Here we go again ...

 

[GuestStar2004]

Singer could have done more with the horseman in terms of action, i think it makes the horseman seem pointless that they didn't get more to do so perhaps a little bit of mindless action wouldn't have hurt there.