Apocalypse X-Men: Apocalypse Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 6

[Sithborg]

I'm certain Sithborg was joking.

I was.

As much as I loved Apocalypse, I understand where most of those critics were coming from. I don't dismiss them because they have different opinions than mine.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I was.

As much as I loved Apocalypse, I understand where most of those critics were coming from. I don't dismiss them because they have different opinions than mine.

when critics that were quoted on the wiki were blasting apocalypse because characters weren't having fun then i can dismiss their opinions.

 

[psylockolussus]

Mystique, Storm, Psylocke, Angel were having fun then? They let Quicksilver have some fun and it ended up inappropriate to the situation that he was in. They even cut the mall scene.

 

[Zant]

Apparently every character in every comic book film from now on must have fun, be cheerful and be full of quips. The grim Batman v Superman really scarred critics.

 

[GuestStar2004]

That is probably true tbh

 

[def28]

It's not. Nobody was complaining about The Dark Knight trilogy being too dark.

It should be pretty obvious the issue was that BvS had problems as a film and narrative. It wasn't rated low specifically because it was dark. It's friggin Batman, of course it's gonna be. But alot of people need dark movies to ya know, be good. Otherwise it's a depressing mess.

Most everyone agrees the extended cut made the film much more enjoyable. Heck, it actually felt shorter because people could now actually follow plot and character motivations. Stuff that makes a film work.

 

[henzINNIT]

^If that's the case it should have worked with X:A as it had Wolverine.

Yes. That is a totally fair comparison.

 

[X-Maniac]

bringing back original cast and then having meeting of the xaviers and having wolverine interacting in non-cameo with first class cast created a lot of
excitement for GA despite lack of merchandize.

I agree with that.

I'm not sure which cast the audience prefer. A non-geeky friend of mine says she likes both casts, but she does love Hugh Jackman. She felt the problems with XM:A were the villain and the script (pacing and the story).

I notice that Disney/Marvel gets round the problem of too many characters in a team movie by making the villain's henchmen nameless minions (the Chitauri and then Ultron's drones).

XM:A had classic characters (Angel, Storm, Psylocke) as horsemen who were then very undeveloped - Magneto was also a henchmen but he's very developed prior to this movie and during this movie.

I'm sure the story/script could have been tweaked. But a story set in Egypt does immediately suggest a place for Storm, and a story with Apocalypse does immediately suggest that Angel/Archangel is expected to be there.

 

[Erzengel]

That's not how Disney/Marvel does it.

Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Cap appear in separate movies. That's why in Avengers, they don't need to do whole backstories on them. The core 4 have appeared in 7, 4, 4 and 6 separate movies respectively.

It works so well that even secondary like Black Widow, Hawkeye, Falcon, Scarlett Witch and tertiary characters like Maria Hill have moments to shine.

But that's not the only way they do it. They introduced 5 characters in GOTG and you don't here issues of not giving one enough screentime.

Meanwhile it was the Wolverine show for how many movies? Then it became the Raven, Xavier and Magneto show. Yet in the 3rd movie, they still focus on them and can't give all the new kids their due.

 

[X-Maniac]

That's not how Disney/Marvel does it.

Well, the Chitauri and Ultron's drones were nameless henchmen, so that is indisputable.

Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Cap appear in separate movies.

The X-Men don't have that luxury, do they? That method would not work cinematically. It's a non-starter as far as the X-Men are concerned. Aside from Wolverine, the individual X-Men would not merit their own movies.

That's why in Avengers, they don't need to do whole backstories on them. The core 4 have appeared in 7, 3, 4 and 6 separate movies respectively.

It works so well that even secondary like Black Widow, Hawkeye, Falcon, Scarlett Witch and tertiary characters like Maria Hill have moments to shine.

Well, we did have lots of backstory on Magneto, Xavier and Raven... yet they still gave Magneto far too much screentime (IMHO) in XM:A

Meanwhile it was the Wolverine show for how many movies? Then it became the Raven, Xavier and Magneto show. Yet in the 3rd movie, they still focus on them and can't give all the new kids their due.

Yep, I agree here. They were focused on continuing the story of the three main characters and making Xavier become the Professor X we know. I think it was a clear narrative/thematic choice, but the resulting movie does have its flaws.

Undeveloped secondary/tertiary characters have always been a thing in this franchise. In DoFP, we had Bishop, Sunspot, Blink and Warpath having little to no development. In First Class we had Emma Frost, Banshee etc being treated that way. Even a few more lines of dialogue would go a long way...

 

[Erzengel]

Well, the Chitauri and Ultron's drones were nameless henchmen, so that is indisputable.

My point is by the Avengers, you aren't trying to do so many things as once. In Avengers, all the characters have been previously introduced, you are now adding deeper characterization as well as how they interact with others.

However, if you mean the drones are used in a way that can highlight each character in terms of action, I would definitely agree with that.

I think Singer did a good job of that in DOFP against the Sentinels but the lack of development of characters I can see make people not as connected. Then with the battle with Apocalypse, it just felt lackluster, visually it just wasn't there for me.

The X-Men don't have that luxury, do they? That method would not work cinematically. It's a non-starter as far as the X-Men are concerned. Aside from Wolverine, the individual X-Men would not merit their own movies.

And Deadpool.

I would have done the original X-Men against Magneto. Sequel to feature the new X-Men and Wolverine.

There's a reason that most of the X-Men only get mini series in comic books and while only certain characters have monthly series.

But, like I said GOTG was able to introduce characters and make it work. It's possible.

Well, we did have lots of backstory on Magneto, Xavier and Raven... yet they still gave Magneto far too much screentime (IMHO) in XM:A

I addressed this in my other comment, but I will say appropriate screen time was given to Xavier and Magneto in the original series. But they should have done more with Storm, Jean especially Cyclops.

Yep, I agree here. They were focused on continuing the story of the three main characters and making Xavier become the Professor X we know. I think it was a clear narrative/thematic choice, but the resulting movie does have its flaws.

Undeveloped secondary/tertiary characters have always been a thing in this franchise. In DoFP, we had Bishop, Sunspot, Blink and Warpath having little to no development. In First Class we had Emma Frost, Banshee etc being treated that way. Even a few more lines of dialogue would go a long way...

Again, the underutilization of Cyclops is still my biggest pet peeve for this series.

 

[iacobusleo]

I'm sure the story/script could have been tweaked. But a story set in Egypt does immediately suggest a place for Storm, and a story with Apocalypse does immediately suggest that Angel/Archangel is expected to be there.

The story could have EASILY been tweaked, that's the frustrating part. The basic elements are there, it's just the pacing is all off. There were so many unnecessary scenes. Did we really need a Wolverine cameo that took up an entire 2nd act with nothing to do with the main story? It got audiences into seats, but was it worth it? Did we need to start with a Cyclops origin story, when we already know what his powers can do and we received little information about his character? That scene took a good 5 to 8 minutes. Why did we need separate introductions to Psylocke and Angel, when in the comics they were lovers so it could have been easy to just introduce them as a single unit, which would have given them characterisation as well.

There's a place for every character in this movie I feel, the movie just needed a writer who knows how to use them effectively and a tighter edit.

 

[Wildcard]

Movie didn't really "get" audiences in seats considering the numbers relative to DOFP or even DP. XMA was a mess that underperformed in every sense.

 

[jaymes_e06]

The story could have EASILY been tweaked, that's the frustrating part. The basic elements are there, it's just the pacing is all off. There were so many unnecessary scenes. Did we really need a Wolverine cameo that took up an entire 2nd act with nothing to do with the main story? It got audiences into seats, but was it worth it? Did we need to start with a Cyclops origin story, when we already know what his powers can do and we received little information about his character? That scene took a good 5 to 8 minutes. Why did we need separate introductions to Psylocke and Angel, when in the comics they were lovers so it could have been easy to just introduce them as a single unit, which would have given them characterisation as well.

There's a place for every character in this movie I feel, the movie just needed a writer who knows how to use them effectively and a tighter edit.

Can't argue with any of that.

 

[SAUspartan]

Movie didn't really "get" audiences in seats considering the numbers relative to DOFP or even DP. XMA was a mess that underperformed in every sense.

I'll take 540 million as a mess any day.

 

[Zant]

I'll take 540 million as a mess any day.

The film under performed, but I could name a couple of big budget films that came out this summer that wished they had Xmen. A worldwide numbers right about now. It has been a weak summer at the box office.

 

[GuestStar2004]

The story could have EASILY been tweaked, that's the frustrating part. The basic elements are there, it's just the pacing is all off. There were so many unnecessary scenes. Did we really need a Wolverine cameo that took up an entire 2nd act with nothing to do with the main story?

Did we need it? No, did we need Spider-Mans introduction in civil war? Again no, it was just just a cool way to get wolverine in the movie, perhaps yes it took you out of the apocalypse story to perhaps set up his own next movie but that's the only real big issue with it.

Did we need to start with a Cyclops origin story, when we already know what his powers can do and we received little information about his character? That scene took a good 5 to 8 minutes.

So should hey just skipped his origin and had him apart of the school, chances are you would have learnt even less about him that way just like X1, no matter how the origin was handled it was still a good starting point for the character to see his powers manifest to him being part of the school and meetin Jean.

Why did we need separate introductions to Psylocke and Angel, when in the comics they were lovers so it could have been easy to just introduce them as a single unit, which would have given them characterisation as well.

Well see to do it like that might not actually have given them more development, it would just glue them together as a couple and all we would know is that they are a couple, a couple who apparently decided to help apocalypse together

Maybe if they had shown that they knew each other in apocalypse that could have been something.

 

[DavidHaller]

I agree! but they could at least have shown Cyclops' origin story in a different setting than his introduction in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"...so super redundant! yeah, we got it. Cyclops went to school!

Wolverine's cameo was also so redundant and unneccassary. X1's and X2's brief flashbacks of Weapon X are so much better than everything we got in "XN:A".

The biggest weakness for me was still that they did not spend 5 or 6 minutes more with Apocalypse's horsemen and give us an idea why they have been so angry at humanity! They could have easily used Xavier to read their minds for a brief moment before Apocalypse shuts him out to give us at least something to understand these characters! Some flashbacks from their individual pasts would have been so helpful to make them a little bit believable and maybe also an explanation that Apocalypse somehow increases their anger with his voice...They were literally standing, posing and doing nothing for the entire movie. Especially Storm is so hard to watch! Singer has definitely no love with this character.

 

[GuestStar2004]

i don't think there was weapon X in the X1 and X2 flashbacks, that was just wolverine escaping from the experiment that was trying to turn him into Weapon X

The only reason we got wolverine here is because this was actually weapon X which we hadn't seen before according to singer.

 

[DavidHaller]

i don't think there was weapon X in the X1 and X2 flashbacks, that was just wolverine escaping from the experiment that was trying to turn him into Weapon X

The only reason we got wolverine here is because this was actually weapon X which we hadn't seen before according to singer.

potato, potato!

 

[DACrowe]

The film under performed, but I could name a couple of big budget films that came out this summer that wished they had Xmen. A worldwide numbers right about now. It has been a weak summer at the box office.

That is a good point. X-Men: Apocalypse underperformed. But it still made money. Probably not a lot, but enough for Fox to think about retooling the franchise and (hopefully) making a better film next time the X-crew gets out the gate.

Meanwhile you know what movies didn't make money this summer despite many of them having brands?

-Alice Through the Looking Glass
-Neighbors 2 (It actually probably made money, but grossly underperformed after the first one)
-Independence Day: Resurgence
-Warcraft
-The BFG
-The Legend of Tarzan
-Ghostbusters
-Ben-Hur

Also, like X-Men but to even smaller amounts, Stark Trek Beyond underperformed.

Apocalypse did not do great numbers, but it came out better than many of its competitors in a summer of scorched earth. Ironically, this will make Fox more inclined to double down on making more movies in this series. Again though, hopefully better ones too.

 

[Sithborg]

The China numbers alone will make Fox think of future potential.

 

[GuestStar2004]

That is a good point. X-Men: Apocalypse underperformed. But it still made money. Probably not a lot, but enough for Fox to think about retooling the franchise and (hopefully) making a better film next time the X-crew gets out the gate.

Meanwhile you know what movies didn't make money this summer despite many of them having brands?

-Alice Through the Looking Glass
-Neighbors 2 (It actually probably made money, but grossly underperformed after the first one)
-Independence Day: Resurgence
-Warcraft
-The BFG
-The Legend of Tarzan
-Ghostbusters
-Ben-Hur

Also, like X-Men but to even smaller amounts, Stark Trek Beyond underperformed.

TMNT 2 also

I honestly thought nostalgia was gonna save TMNT 2 as it had bobop, rocksteady, krang, i just thought it would hook in the late 80s to 90s kids as well as kids today since i do see alot of kids with TMNT bags and stuff

 

[psylockolussus]

The China numbers alone will make Fox think of future potential.

If only Fox gets 50% from the China ticket sales. Thats not the case at all.

 

[DavidHaller]

we will still get another X-Men sequel and that's the only thing that matters!