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

[JEM]

Guardians is like no other Marvel movie.
Ant Man is a heist movie.

The X-Men movies have a similar narrative in every single one of them.

Hum, i will say FC, DOFP, XA have some difference with X1,X2,X3.
IMO, Xavier is still the main character of the franchise but the cinematography and feeling are different.

FC = Bond movie
DOFP = Terminator
XA = Comicsbook

My friends say XA don't look Singer movie at all.

 

[ApophènX]

I know this board has major issues understanding this. But Deadpool was a love story. Wade and Nessa's relationship was a huge reason why audiences connected to it. Take out the cancer, relationship and heavier dramatic scenes of torture and the film just doesn't work as well. It balances alot well even with the goofy insanity.

If films like Deadpool were so easy to get made, then Fox and other studios would have made it or films lake it 5 years ago. It was different, and looked at as a risk even with a PG-13. That wasn't cause it was a simple stupid R rated movie. It had heart, character, drama, action, romance, horror, comedy, broke rules, had charismatic leads and offered something new to audiences in terms of style in a maintstream comic film.

Doesn't felt risky and real broker of rules to me but i agree with most of what you said. What allowed most of the euphoria that made Deadpool a new character imo is that it could go in rated land. To me they didn't took it really further or make something really special. It's not about not having the drama or torture side, it is just they didn't put it in a creative manner. To me the movie lost is creative freshness real soon and they din't make a memorable third act.

This is pretty subjective, i don't have a good concentration spawn and i get out of movies easy. I still liked the fact they give a real kick in the beggining, it felt like "maybe it's gonna be getting less intense, we assume". The vilain was classic nemesis vilain. Didn't touch me or had real depth, ly feeling.

As for X-Men movie evolution of feelings, Singer stilled delivered some heavy scenes in DoFP and Apocalypse and knows how to bring momentum. The scene where Charles meet his future self is perfect in rythm and camera angle, the playout of colors and the blurred focus. Then couter angle. This is cinema.

He did some cool into XMA with the talk from Erik and Cerebro and the works of light and emotion. Or moving the characters as there emotions changed. There was a real light work on XMA that gave a pretty intimacy.

He likes to convey information through images and details, those make good flow in the movie and hidden meanings miam

 

[daddydivine]

So whats the ceiling on this thing? like 525 mil ww?

Marvel deflecting aside... thats not a pretty number for an X-men film.

 

[spider-neil]

Hum, i will say FC, DOFP, XA have some difference with X1,X2,X3.
IMO, Xavier is still the main character of the franchise but the cinematography and feeling are different.

FC = Bond movie
DOFP = Terminator
XA = Comicsbook

My friends say XA don't look Singer movie at all.

Sure, the setting and the villains change but the movies 'feel' the same. It's exactly the same with the Spider-Man franchise.
There are so many interesting things FOX can do with the X-Men including taking them to space which is a major part of the X-Men mythology.
We've seen the Magneto/Prof X chess game over and over. Take the X-Men in new directions.

 

[ApophènX]

Sure, the setting and the villains change but the movies 'feel' the same. It's exactly the same with the Spider-Man franchise.
There are so many interesting things FOX can do with the X-Men including taking them to space which is a major part of the X-Men mythology.
We've seen the Magneto/Prof X chess game over and over. Take the X-Men in new directions.

This is clearly where they are headed. Apocalypse was there to finish the correction to the flaws of the OT and beggan to set the new feel. Comic book, more light and fun, more goofy soap opera. It's coming.

Interesting that the movie supposed to correct X3 is criticized almost'as vividly as him. The movie all had clearly different feel in the second trilogy. The way he shoots as even changed, no more big focus in the angle on Professor X. Wich i liked alot because perspectiv and depth but the feel is right out the comic now. Still can be improved but to do that you make mistakes and you learn.

I'm really positiv on the future.

 

[spider-neil]

This is clearly where they are headed. Apocalypse was there to finish the correction to the flaws of the OT and beggan to set the new feel. Comic book, more light and fun, more goofy soap opera. It's coming.

Interesting that the movie supposed to correct X3 is criticized almost'as vividly as him. The movie all had clearly different feel in the second trilogy. The way he shoots as even changed, no more big focus in the angle on Professor X. Wich i liked alot because perspectiv and depth but the feel is right out the comic now. Still can be improved but to do that you make mistakes and you learn.

I'm really positiv on the future.

I felt Prof. X, Mystique and Magneto's arcs were at a good enough place in DofP to close. Singer had erased X3 of the face of the earth. That was the time to cut him loose and go in a new direction. Well, better late than never. I don't see him returning for X4 or the new incarnation of the X-Men.

 

[def28]

Doesn't felt risky and real broker of rules to me but i agree with most of what you said. What allowed most of the euphoria that made Deadpool a new character imo is that it could go in rated land. To me they didn't took it really further or make something really special. It's not about not having the drama or torture side, it is just they didn't put it in a creative manner. To me the movie lost is creative freshness real soon and they din't make a memorable third act.

This is pretty subjective, i don't have a good concentration spawn and i get out of movies easy. I still liked the fact they give a real kick in the beggining, it felt like "maybe it's gonna be getting less intense, we assume". The vilain was classic nemesis vilain. Didn't touch me or had real depth, ly feeling.

Deadpools third act is definitely cliched, but it's the way it's presented and self aware that makes for the entertainment. It's riffing on itself. Which is what a Deadpool movie should be doing. Just look at the opening credits. That's what separated it.

As for not being risky, I just don't see how that can be argued. That has been an issue for the filmmakers since the film was announced in 2010. Nobody knew this would be the highest grossing R rated film and second highest grossing comic origin outside of Spidey. It wouldn't have had a 50 million budget and years of crappy studio treatment if it was a safe film.

 

[superweirdo87]

So whats the ceiling on this thing? like 525 mil ww?

Marvel deflecting aside... thats not a pretty number for an X-men film.

A poster I trust at Box Office Theory thinks 530 is the resting place.

 

[superweirdo87]

The X-Men do need to become more about the IP vs the actor though. Not in the "don't dish out big bucks for Hugh/Fassy/Jen/OT cast" kinda way but rather bring them in only when they're necessary and not make it a requirement for all of them to be there in each film. To that though, they'll have to start making more films though and patiently develop other characters. So waiting too long isn't going to help trying to get away from those actors.

I think it's important that the plot not revolve around popular actors like it did with Jackman and Wolverine.

"The chief flaw of X-Men: The Last Stand was that it told the “Dark Phoenix Saga” as a tragic romance between Jean Grey and Logan, two glorified strangers in the night. The actual co-star of the story, Cyclops, was unceremoniously killed off, Ice Man lost his big heroic speech, and the film stopped dead in its tracks so Wolverine could go to the “Fox Forest” and randomly kill a bunch of evil mutants. Now, X-Men: Apocalypse stops dead in its tracks at the moment of maximum interest so that the young mutants can be shipped off to Akali Lake and can be rescued by a-cameo-ing Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Logan is an excellent character, and it’s something of a miracle that Jackman has played him this long (although I’d argue the time spread between X-Men films which allowed Jackman to do other movies is a big part of that). The issue arises when the film pretzels itself, regarding story and structure, to justify Wolverine showing up to do his thing and/or take center stage."

I can see why they would choose to give a send-off or finish a series with the "First Class" crew. Though, I think that was rendered badly with so much going on.

X-Men needs a cohesive vision to sustain serialized storytelling, and going movie by movie just is not working. I understand that people like self-contained movies, but the thing is, the movies right now are kind of going in circles.

 

[spider-neil]

Deadpools third act is definitely cliched, but it's the way it's presented and self aware that makes for the entertainment. It's riffing on itself. Which is what a Deadpool movie should be doing. Being self aware, just look at the opening credits. That's what separated it.

As for not being risky, I just don't see how that can be argued. That has been an issue for the filmmakers since the film was announced in 2010.

I thought the third act of Deadpool was rubbish. You spend the first two acts calling out all the superhero cliches you can think of and then use every third act cliche in the book to close out your movie. You are either not self aware or lazy. Which is it?

 

[jaymes_e06]

Sure, the setting and the villains change but the movies 'feel' the same. It's exactly the same with the Spider-Man franchise.
There are so many interesting things FOX can do with the X-Men including taking them to space which is a major part of the X-Men mythology.
We've seen the Magneto/Prof X chess game over and over. Take the X-Men in new directions.

The same can be said about the Avengers films. Let's not do a tit for tat though and just agree to disagree. Anyone with eyes can see they have a formula they adhere to.

 

[spider-neil]

I understand that people like self-contained movies, but the thing is, the movies right now are kind of going in circles.

Agreed.

 

[Sithborg]

Guardians is like no other Marvel movie.
Ant Man is a heist movie.

The X-Men movies have a similar narrative in every single one of them.

To you. To me, Guardians felt like the same old thing I had been getting for quite a while. Not a bad film, but my reaction was the same as Winter Soldier, which was "meh". Iron Man 3 was the last film to get me excited about the MCU.

But I am a bit biased toward X-men. Not sure why, but the X films really hit the spot for me. Tastes are different, which is perfectly fine.

 

[def28]

I thought the third act of Deadpool was rubbish. You spend the first two acts calling out superhero cliches you can think of and then use every third act cliche in the book to close out your movie. You are either not self aware or lazy. Which is it?

It was still calling out superhero cliches, but I can see that complaint and not arguing about it being super original in that act. Though I'll take alot of moments in that third act with the things like Peter Cetera playing and weird 80s animation. Likewise with the brutal fights, decapitations and Colossus actually getting a decent fight for once. Not as strong as the rest but entertaining. Which is why we go to these.

Apocalypses last act was just a mess, I'm personally fine with cliched third acts (pretty much all superhero films have them) but the execution and potential of showing off the characters was just poor and dull. It wasn't fun, and visually messy. We have seen better in X-Men and other films.

 

[spider-neil]

The same can be said about the Avengers films. Let's not do a tit for tat though and just agree to disagree. Anyone with eyes can see they have a formula they adhere to.

I'm saying the X-Men can and should break from formula and there are about million different X-Men stories that would take them in a totally different direction.

 

[Smilodon]

It's so self-aware they featured a SHIELD helicarrier-look alike. Deadpool was very different and risky. Sure it's not as cinematically shot as the X-Men films, but that doesn't mean X-Men is creatively riskier than Deadpool. That's just Singer's style, which is just more refined than Miller given how Singer has directed feature films for over two decades and Miller's first feature is Deadpool. But thankfully Miller isn't a guy who is going to pretend he's making high art and he's admitted that over and over again in interviews for Deadpool.

Deadpool's subject matter is what makes it risky, not the fact that there aren't elaborate practical effects and neon lighting like in DOFP/Apocalypse. Stuff like Erik losing his family in Apocalypse was really well directed and emotional and I would argue, pushing the envelope in terms of what we might see in a mainstream comic book film. But I wouldn't say it's any less creative than Deadpool. It's just stylistically different.

 

[Smilodon]

I think it's important that the plot not revolve around popular actors like it did with Jackman and Wolverine.

"The chief flaw of X-Men: The Last Stand was that it told the “Dark Phoenix Saga” as a tragic romance between Jean Grey and Logan, two glorified strangers in the night. The actual co-star of the story, Cyclops, was unceremoniously killed off, Ice Man lost his big heroic speech, and the film stopped dead in its tracks so Wolverine could go to the “Fox Forest” and randomly kill a bunch of evil mutants. Now, X-Men: Apocalypse stops dead in its tracks at the moment of maximum interest so that the young mutants can be shipped off to Akali Lake and can be rescued by a-cameo-ing Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Logan is an excellent character, and it’s something of a miracle that Jackman has played him this long (although I’d argue the time spread between X-Men films which allowed Jackman to do other movies is a big part of that). The issue arises when the film pretzels itself, regarding story and structure, to justify Wolverine showing up to do his thing and/or take center stage."

I can see why they would choose to give a send-off or finish a series with the "First Class" crew. Though, I think that was rendered badly with so much going on.

X-Men needs a cohesive vision to sustain serialized storytelling, and going movie by movie just is not working. I understand that people like self-contained movies, but the thing is, the movies right now are kind of going in circles.

The Wolverine cameo probably sets up stuff for Wolverine III, so it does seem like they're trying to think ahead, it just wasn't handled well. (Especially because the young X-Men bonding happens in that sequence as well so you can't cut it out) I don't think a Weapon X cameo is a bad idea on paper and would save Mangold a lot of time from having to retell Weapon X himself in 2023 instead of 1983, but it's more of a screenplay and structure issue vs necessity I feel like in this case.

 

[spider-neil]

It's so self-aware they featured a SHIELD helicarrier-look alike. Deadpool was very different and risky. Sure it's not as cinematically shot as the X-Men films, but that doesn't mean X-Men is creatively riskier than Deadpool. That's just Singer's style, which is just more refined than Miller given how Singer has directed feature films for over two decades and Miller's first feature is Deadpool. But thankfully Miller isn't a guy who is going to pretend he's making high art and he's admitted that over and over again in interviews for Deadpool.

Deadpool's subject matter is what makes it risky, not the fact that there aren't elaborate practical effects and neon lighting like in DOFP/Apocalypse. Stuff like Erik losing his family in Apocalypse was really well directed and emotional and I would argue, pushing the envelope in terms of what we might see in a mainstream comic book film. But I wouldn't say it's any less creative than Deadpool. It's just stylistically different.

My point is, you call out supehero cliches like 'Superhero landing' and then have your girlfriend stolen in the third as a damsel in distress to rescue which is probably 'THE' biggest superhero cliche in the book. I'm not talking about the look or setting at all.

 

[Smilodon]

My point is, you call out supehero cliches like 'Superhero landing' and then have your girlfriend stolen in the third as a damsel in distress to rescue which is probably 'THE' biggest superhero cliche in the book. I'm not talking about the look or setting at all.

I was responding to another Apophenix there, my bad. Multiple posts came while I was writing that response haha.

 

[spider-neil]

Take the X-Men into space.
Lose Magento and Mystique. Have Charles on in an advisory roll.
Lose the decade time jumps as they are merely a gimmick at this point.
If you are going to embrace Deadpool's hard R rating then have the Brood.
The General audience are hungry for a decent 'Alien' movie.

 

[JEM]

So whats the ceiling on this thing? like 525 mil ww?

Marvel deflecting aside... thats not a pretty number for an X-men film.

I think between 528 and 560 million, it seems have normal drop each week in OS market.

 

[ApophènX]

I think it's important that the plot not revolve around popular actors like it did with Jackman and Wolverine.

"The chief flaw of X-Men: The Last Stand was that it told the “Dark Phoenix Saga” as a tragic romance between Jean Grey and Logan, two glorified strangers in the night. The actual co-star of the story, Cyclops, was unceremoniously killed off, Ice Man lost his big heroic speech, and the film stopped dead in its tracks so Wolverine could go to the “Fox Forest” and randomly kill a bunch of evil mutants. Now, X-Men: Apocalypse stops dead in its tracks at the moment of maximum interest so that the young mutants can be shipped off to Akali Lake and can be rescued by a-cameo-ing Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Logan is an excellent character, and it’s something of a miracle that Jackman has played him this long (although I’d argue the time spread between X-Men films which allowed Jackman to do other movies is a big part of that). The issue arises when the film pretzels itself, regarding story and structure, to justify Wolverine showing up to do his thing and/or take center stage."

I can see why they would choose to give a send-off or finish a series with the "First Class" crew. Though, I think that was rendered badly with so much going on.

X-Men needs a cohesive vision to sustain serialized storytelling, and going movie by movie just is not working. I understand that people like self-contained movies, but the thing is, the movies right now are kind of going in circles.

Logan's alkali lake sequence is perfectly fitting the theme of the story. First he didn't saved the kids, the kids the saved him. Logan embody the unleashed power here, something the movie is all about. Jean giving back memory to Logan is both a closure of the ark of a character who have always been looking for his memory and a healing process that is the center of the story. Jean save Logan not like in X3 and for the first time he doesn't stab a woman in the stomach. It is also a premiss of Charles giving back Moira memory, those are major theme since X1.


If you complain about having too mich Wolverine when the movie is about bringing an end to it then you did not understood the cohesive are looking for. This saga is pretty cohesive and XMA is far from contradicting that.

It is like the house repair scene with Erik and Jean, super powerfull scene. In FC Erik killed his father figure where in XMA Charles beg Jean to help him and do it. So we have them buildin it back, the young and old, woman and man. And both were the enemies in X3. This is cohesive to me

 

[GuestStar2004]

would save Mangold a lot of time from having to retell Weapon X himself in 2023 instead of 1983, but it's more of a screenplay and structure issue vs necessity I feel like in this case.

You never know really as they could have a flashback to fill in some gaps in the weapon X stuff. after all Singer did say marigold wanted to have links to X-Men: Apocalypse.

Infact it actually wouldn't surprise me if the movie opened with a flashback.

 

[ApophènX]

Deadpool's subject matter is what makes it risky, not the fact that there aren't elaborate practical effects and neon lighting like in DOFP/Apocalypse. Stuff like Erik losing his family in Apocalypse was really well directed and emotional and I would argue, pushing the envelope in terms of what we might see in a mainstream comic book film. But I wouldn't say it's any less creative than Deadpool. It's just stylistically different.

It is not less creative but different, totally agree. I was answering another post about x-men feelings evolution.

Of course i don't care to have neons and stuff in Deadpool but, staing in the mindset of the begginings, they could have push it further and make a real game changing third act. I felt it was getting more and more conventional as it went on, they should have twisted it again at some point, going into a new direction.

To me XMA does that, not in the best way, when Charles fight Apocalypse in the astral plane. It is a real emotional thing that his headspace and heart would look like the house. It blurrs the limits beetwen the inside and the outside. The movie beings about Charles openess to the other (in the opposite of Erik whom in FC close himself from others to kill his creator and father figure), it is symbolized by the bald head and the cry of help for Jean. Really chatarsistic for me. It's a theme i'm sensitive to also and it may feel like a detail to others

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

I think between 528 and 560 million, it seems have normal drop each week in OS market.

Does that take into account release dates? It was out a week earlier in most overseas markets.