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

[Frankeh]

Well if that's how it worked the Cyclops and Jean shouldn't have been in apoclaypse, but then people would say they NEED to be in it

You know damn well Cyclops has not been properly serviced. And no he has not had a trilogy for himself like Charles, Magneto and Mystique. He was supporting in all X-Men OT films.

People are feeling the same "Wolverine" saturation with Charles, Magneto and Mystique, you just refuse to accept it.

 

[ApophènX]

Everything's gonna be alright. Everything's gonna be alright.

Yeah smartphone or computer are far from cinema experience faaaaaaaaar

 

[superweirdo87]

I don't think they had a trilogy of films, but they had one movie focused on them, another that concentrated much more on them, and one where they occupied considerable space. I think their stories are largely told, and given how much retread XM:A did with the trio having the same conversations again, it would be a bad idea to focus on them. I think having Charles in a supporting role, Erik pop in and out from time to time in interesting places, and Mystique disappear makes sense. And they should focus on Cyclops and Jean Grey and bring a lot of story and depth to those characters.

 

[GuestStar2004]

You know damn well Cyclops has not been properly serviced. And no he has not had a trilogy for himself like Charles, Magneto and Mystique. He was supporting in all X-Men OT films.

People are feeling the same "Wolverine" saturation with Charles, Magneto and Mystique, you just refuse to accept it.

As I said Charles,magneto, beast and mystique have obviously shared with other characters including cyclops who had a big role in apocalypse, infact Jean, cyclops and storm had big hands in taking apocalypse down as if they were important to the film.

I guess they were privileged, or was it just expected that they would or should?

 

[Frankeh]

As I said Charles,magneto and mystique have obviously shared with other characters including cyclops who had a big role in apocalypse, infact Jean, cyclops and storm had big hands in taking apocalypse down as if they were important to the film.

Still not telling me why an X-Men movie needs those three in it. But you won't let it go, so I guess I should.

And Storm being important in Apocalypse? Come the hell on.

 

[superweirdo87]

I could see a reboot working out for Fox, a hard reboot with Deadpool being the first movie in the universe. Also, reboots tend to be a safe investment and that is something that studios prize.

Fox did do a sequel to "First Class" even though it underperformed, but expectations were different back then. I don't know.

A hard reboot would work.

Personally, I want to see more of the young X-Men. And I think a break and a new creative team can bring vitality to the franchise. I don't know if it could do great numbers. But, I think with a 160M budget and a better movie, it could boost numbers enough to make it ok for Fox in the overall scheme of things.

 

[ApophènX]

Stop speaking of reboot it is ill omen, you will drag the evil eye on us, he watch from a far away tower. Don't wanna mess with those guyzz zzz

 

[BeholdMe]

Well if that's how it worked the Cyclops and Jean shouldn't have been in apoclaypse, but then people would say they NEED to be in it and be important characters and they were, so in the end certain characters didn't have that trilogy all to themselves.

Your missing his point Gueststar

 

[X-Maniac]

I could see a reboot working out for Fox, a hard reboot with Deadpool being the first movie in the universe. Also, reboots tend to be a safe investment and that is something that studios prize.

Fox did do a sequel to "First Class" even though it underperformed, but expectations were different back then. I don't know.

A sequel that involved the original cast, a big dollop of Wolverine and a story with time travel and Sentinels. It was far more than the standard sequel suggested by the ending of First Class. They pulled out all the stops. It worked.

A hard reboot would work.

Not needed. Just a shift in focus. Now the First Class trilogy and Singerverse has wrapped up its story, it's the perfect time to get someone else to step into the same world and show it through different eyes.

 

[BeholdMe]

As I said Charles,magneto, beast and mystique have obviously shared with other characters including cyclops who had a big role in apocalypse, infact Jean, cyclops and storm had big hands in taking apocalypse down as if they were important to the film.

I guess they were privileged, or was it just expected that they would or should?

Storm not in the slightest she faded into the background once she became a horsemen that's a big reach there. I agree they all helped to bring him down but there was much to be desired with how little she did. She was most like an introduction to the new young cast.

 

[Snikt]

I notice the reboot thing is always suggested when the film doesn't do well critically.

If the Amazing Spider-Man 2 had been $700 million WW and been rated in 80s on RT, there would've been no reboot and people wouldn't be clamoring for it. Obviously we know the story there. The story is a litte different than the X-Men franchise.

Fox is not in trouble financially. As others have said, it will make well over $500 million WW; third highest in the X-Men franchise. Yes, they need to re-assess the property and take their time with the next film in the franchise (not that Apocalypse was rushed).

 

[superweirdo87]

I notice the reboot thing is always suggested when the film doesn't do well critically.

If the Amazing Spider-Man 2 had been $700 million WW and been rated in 80s on RT, there would've been no reboot and people wouldn't be clamoring for it. Obviously we know the story there. The story is a litte different than the X-Men franchise.

Fox is not in trouble financially. As others have said, it will make well over $500 million WW; third highest in the X-Men franchise. Yes, they need to re-assess the property and take their time with the next film in the franchise (not that Apocalypse was rushed).

I favor such an approach. I think taking a break, bringing in a new creative team, and focusing on Scott and Jean makes sense. I also think a lower budget makes sense and potentially works. Say 160M.

 

[jaymes_e06]

^Seconded.

 

[Wildcard]

I'd say go even lower around $130-$150. Part of the problem with the X-Men films barring DP has been they have almost always been over-budgeted.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Wt actual **** are you talking about Hulk?

 

[Sithborg]

I notice the reboot thing is always suggested when the film doesn't do well critically.

If the Amazing Spider-Man 2 had been $700 million WW and been rated in 80s on RT, there would've been no reboot and people wouldn't be clamoring for it. Obviously we know the story there. The story is a litte different than the X-Men franchise.

I somehow doubt that. There were plenty of rumors of a bloated cost. I think Sony was betting on a billion, which they fell quite short on.

 

[superweirdo87]

I somehow doubt that. There were plenty of rumors of a bloated cost. I think Sony was betting on a billion, which they fell quite short on.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/s...idable-foes-at-foreign-box-office-1201157653/

"Just how big does “Spider-Man 2,” directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, need to be? Pascal, who declined to be interviewed, has set a goal of $1 billion worldwide, say sources."

"Sony is betting big all right, with more than $400 million in production and worldwide marketing costs riding on the superhero’s back."

 

[YoungBlood]

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/s...idable-foes-at-foreign-box-office-1201157653/

"Just how big does “Spider-Man 2,” directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, need to be? Pascal, who declined to be interviewed, has set a goal of $1 billion worldwide, say sources."

"Sony is betting big all right, with more than $400 million in production and worldwide marketing costs riding on the superhero’s back."[/QUOTE]






I get the feeling that they're gonna do the same for Ghostbusters as well.

 

[Wildcard]

Wt actual **** are you talking about Hulk?

There's nothing in my post that's hard to comprehend. But, I'll make the adjustment & say that barring X1 & DP, most of the movies are over-budgeted. Meaning they could've spent less and have been more profitable.

Get it now?

 

[kevork89]

I'd say go even lower around $130-$150. Part of the problem with the X-Men films barring DP has been they have almost always been over-budgeted.

It's just not possible though. Look at The Wolverine that was a solo film and it cost about $120 million to make. Even Captain America and Thor first solos were around $140 million and they're just solo films. I don't think the X-Men films have been over budgeted. All these huge comic book franchises are costly. Especially team related ones with big cast. They're going to be on the high end of $100 million and early $200 million.

 

[spider-neil]

X-Men is like Spider-Man. Since 2001 and 2002 respectively, Fox and Sony have been making the same movie over and over again.
Sony have gone to Marvel cup in hand to save them and take them in a new direction.
Fox need to do something radical as well.

Draw a line through the Magneto/Charles dynamic. Kick Wolverine into touch and lets ******* see something different for ONCE.

 

[Smilodon]

Yeah, imagine if we got Sentinels, Danger Room, Beast and Toad vs Nightcrawler in X2 like Singer originally wanted/considered. Or more time on X1. (Though the old Sentinel designs sucked). In hindsight, I suppose those budget cuts forced Singer to focus on the story for X2 instead so it all worked out.

Budgets are fine at 160-200 million. It's how to use that budget that counts as FC/Deadpool has shown us. Singer finally got everything he wanted in this film - the characters, the actors, the budget, and the time. But he came up short. No excuses this time around, time for new blood.

 

[BMM]

If the X-Men films have been over budgeted since X-Men, then all superhero films have been over budgeted.

 

[Xrated48]

I notice the reboot thing is always suggested when the film doesn't do well critically.

If the Amazing Spider-Man 2 had been $700 million WW and been rated in 80s on RT, there would've been no reboot and people wouldn't be clamoring for it. Obviously we know the story there. The story is a litte different than the X-Men franchise.

Fox is not in trouble financially. As others have said, it will make well over $500 million WW; third highest in the X-Men franchise. Yes, they need to re-assess the property and take their time with the next film in the franchise (not that Apocalypse was rushed).

If I'm not mistaken I think Amazing Spider-Man 2 made over 700 Million WW but I could be wrong

 

[spider-neil]

If I'm not mistaken I think Amazing Spider-Man 2 made over 700 Million WW but I could be wrong

700m would have been a fine return for ASM2 had the budget been a bit more manageable. The budget was huge so even a big figure like 700m is a disappointment. Doubtless Sony would have made their money back with product placement and home video but Sony don't make movies just to break even or they may as well just leave your money in the bank to collect interest.