Apocalypse X-Men Apocalypse News and Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 42

[GuestStar2004]

Thing is if reviews didn't effect box office then why did a film like Fantastic four flop? it only made $168.0 million so not many people see it, was it the trailers not being good? would it still have made that much even if the reviews had been great? there is clearly something that put people off and i doubt it was the 2 previous films

 

[Havok83]

Thing is if reviews didn't effect box office then why did a film like Fantastic four flop? it only made $168.0 million so not many people see it, was it the trailers not being good? would it still have made that much even if the reviews had been great? there is clearly something that put people off and i doubt it was the 2 previous films

the trailers didnt exactly inspire much confidence in the project. Great reviews may have helped it but the film was already doomed long before it came out. People were already hating on and negative towards it from pretty early on

 

[X-Maniac]

Thing is if reviews didn't effect box office then why did a film like Fantastic four flop? it only made $168.0 million so not many people see it, was it the trailers not being good? would it still have made that much even if the reviews had been great? there is clearly something that put people off and i doubt it was the 2 previous films

Reviews obviously have some effect but people do not necessarily rush to RT to see a collection of all the reviews.

They might hear a review on a TV show (we have a film reviews show on television here in the UK), read a single review in whatever newspaper they see/buy, or see the review rating on a cinema website (in the UK, audiences on the Odeon cinemas site can give a review of a movie and it then gets a score; before release, it's given a 'buzz' rating).

And there are other factors - marketing, popularity/reputation of the franchise, content of the film itself, etc.

So what went wrong with X-Men: Apocalypse? Well, obviously, the content of the film (the grandiose villain, the re-treading of things already seen, the disaster movie plot) led to some poor reviews as well as being off-putting for a proportion of the public. The film needed a lot more zip and substance. Things that weren't developed should have been, things that were front and centre should not have been.

While it might serve to thematically wrap up the Magneto/Mystique/Xavier arcs and show the redemption of Xavier as he finally creates his family of X-Men, that is (as a non-geek friend said to me on FB) somewhat indulgent for a summer blockbuster.

I'll still enjoy watching this trilogy, but I can see where it didn't resonate with a lot of the general audience.

 

[superweirdo87]

Reviews influence box office, but the two do not have a one to one relationship. Also, reviews do not seem to impact opening weekend much, but they do influence legs. The relationship is not perfect, but it does exist.

https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Old_Projects/kennedy.pdf

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-quality-vs-box-office-grosses

 

[superweirdo87]

X-Maniac, I know you are going to disagree with this, but you overlook one of the most crucial factors in why the movie sucked: there were too many characters and it was overstuffed. When you have 130 minutes and 16 characters, you are bound to have a lot of characters with no payoff.

Also, I think that simply choosing to focus on other characters would not necessarily have led to tens of million more in the domestic market or hundreds of millions more worldwide.

Firstly, Bourne and Star Trek are observing declines too and they will fare better than Apocalypse in the domestic market. But given that they grossed a little less than DOFP and X3, but also observed fairly sharp declines suggests that some broad market forces may be at play. If the foremost issue was that it was self-indulgent to focus on finishing a trilogy for the main quartet and the movie wrongly focused on them, then why are Bourne and Star Trek also observing declines that look pretty close to XMA?

I think losing Wolverine hurt a lot. Otherwise, the biggest problems were a lack of novelty, nuance, and quality. I think the problems in the latter area derive from having too many characters. They all divide up screen time so that a lot of the movie has material that does not pay off. The other thing is that the movie looked like a lot of the same on two levels. The movie literally relies on some of the same tropes we have seen before: Professor X and Magneto disagree, Magneto lifts something heavy, Magneto switches sides, Professor X is taken out of commission, Mystique is conflicted about her blue form. And, the broad contours of the movie were a villain who wants to destroy the world without any distinct motivations and heroes who are saving it.

 

[psylockolussus]

So remember the Dazzler vinyl that was cut in the film? It was showcased on FOx's SDCC booth for X-Men and the artist that drew that Dazzler vinyl is not happy about it.

 

[X-Maniac]

X-Maniac, I know you are going to disagree with this, but you overlook one of the most crucial factors in why the movie sucked: there were too many characters and it was overstuffed. When you have 130 minutes and 16 characters, you are bound to have a lot of characters with no payoff.

But was it any more packed with characters than other X-Men films or other superhero ensembles (Civil War, for instance)?

Who could they have removed to streamline the story?

We were more or less guaranteed to get more Quicksilver (because he was a highlight of DoFP) - though they could still have omitted him, I suppose. We were guaranteed to get more Mystique (the poster girl - literally - for this trilogy), and more Magneto and Xavier.

Also, I think that simply choosing to focus on other characters would not necessarily have led to tens of million more in the domestic market or hundreds of millions more worldwide.

Maybe, but there was too much focus on Apocalypse himself in the trailers, especially in light of the doubts over the make-up design and the generic 'destroy the world' plot. A 'names trailer' would have been better, and making Apoc more mysterious in the trailers could have been better

Firstly, Bourne and Star Trek are observing declines too and they will fare better than Apocalypse in the domestic market. But given that they grossed a little less than DOFP and X3, but also observed fairly sharp declines suggests that some broad market forces may be at play. If the foremost issue was that it was self-indulgent to focus on finishing a trilogy for the main quartet and the movie wrongly focused on them, then why are Bourne and Star Trek also observing declines that look pretty close to XMA?

Maybe a general audience fatigue with some ongoing franchises?

I think losing Wolverine hurt a lot.

Possibly. i'm not a fan of his overdominance of this series but seeing him scurry off into the woods did feel anticlimactic.

Otherwise, the biggest problems were a lack of novelty, nuance, and quality. I think the problems in the latter area derive from having too many characters. They all divide up screen time so that a lot of the movie has material that does not pay off. The other thing is that the movie looked like a lot of the same on two levels. The movie literally relies on some of the same tropes we have seen before: Professor X and Magneto disagree, Magneto lifts something heavy, Magneto switches sides, Professor X is taken out of commission, Mystique is conflicted about her blue form. And, the broad contours of the movie were a villain who wants to destroy the world without any distinct motivations and heroes who are saving it.

I agree with most of that but, again, not sure who they could have removed from the movie and how.

 

[psylockolussus]

Reviews and RT ratings are definitely not the be all of things. There are still a lot of people that watch a movie even if they are aware of the movie's bad RT rating. At the end of the day, if people enjoyed the movie, there's a good potential for good word of mouth to spread and those people buying another ticket. That isn't the case here. Bad RT rating, bad box-office legs and Apocalypse didn't even have strong competition compare to when DOFP was released in 2014. The interest to see the younger version again wasn't all there too.

 

[Havok83]

But was it any more packed with characters than other X-Men films or other superhero ensembles (Civil War, for instance)?

Who could they have removed to streamline the story?

the difference with CW at least is that with the exception of BP, Zemo and SM, all the main players were already known. All had their origins and introductions in other films. The film was able to jump into mini arcs for each of them and by and large they were utilized effectively. Thats not the case here with Apocalypse as this film introduced a ton of new characters to this current trilogy. Apocalypse, Angel, Jean, Psylocke, Cyclops, Jubilee, Storm, Nightcrawler...how do you give each of them proper introductions and character development, while still maintaining the momentum thats built for the overall arc of the trilogy? Maybe better writing could have handled it well, but this film didnt have good writing.

I dont think anyone needed to be removed but they definitely should have cut out that entire Weapon X sequence and used that time to fleshing out some of these newer characters.

 

[psylockolussus]

God, that Weapon X sequence was probably the worst part of the movie for me.

 

[X-Maniac]

Reviews and RT ratings are definitely not the be all of things. There are still a lot of people that watch a movie even if they are aware of the movie's bad RT rating. At the end of the day, if people enjoyed the movie, there's a good potential for good word of mouth to spread and those people buying another ticket. That isn't the case here. Bad RT rating, bad box-office legs and Apocalypse didn't even have strong competition compare to when DOFP was released in 2014. The interest to see the younger version again wasn't all there too.

That's because of the marketing and the trailers, not because of the cast themselves.

GoTG had an unknown cast and unknown characters but it did well because of the concept and the marketing and the trailers.

The younger cast should have been used more prominently in the trailers - maybe a 'names trailer' - because there was nothing wrong with them in the movie. They weren't miscast, they weren't badly portrayed.

 

[psylockolussus]

Doesn't matter. The older cast didn't need a "names trailer to sell". It is similar to the GA not being that invested to Andrew Garfield's version of Spider-Man compare to the Tobey McGuire version. And it will happen again once they got another actor to play Wolverine. Familarity always sell better than "talent". This is why recasting or doing prequel version of established characters don't usually translate to bigger box-office success especially X-Men is not even a box office juggernaut compare to the other franchises that had prequel films. This is basically strike 2 for the First Class cast. If I told you, Apocalypse would only earn 9 million more than First Class in North America, would you have believe me? That right there, is quite alarming.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

While I agree the Weapon X section wasn't needed, for me it was worth it just to see Wolverine's breakout done the right way.

 

[GuestStar2004]

We are in a different time now to what we were in 2006 with comic book movies, they have become less of a privilege and more of an expectation because we have had so many and we are getting so many with no plan of stopping any time soon, and of course marvel have come along and offered their world building gimmick, while WB have been trying to replicate that and haven't had as much luck so far in terms of critical reception so X-Men is basically sat in the middle of the 2 trying to do its own thing.

DOFP i think had a unique cross over factor but it also had time travel, cgi robots ect ect, while apocalypse i think it promised alot in terms of scope but when you watch it yeah it does feel a little like singer upped the scale only a little bit but was still playing it safe to much so it ended up feeling smaller as i remember alot of us thought they were holding back on showing action scenes because marketing didn't show that much of it but actually the problem was there really wasn't all that much action to begin with beyond certain things that singer clearly wanted to keep secret like wolverine and phoenix.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Doesn't matter. The older cast didn't need a "names trailer to sell".

Lucky X3 had more then that, toys, games ect ect, different time, early days of comic book movies.

With DOFP you had the 2 casts cross over as a stand out gimmick but you also had robots, time travel and a heap load of characters like bishop who because of the comics you expect to have a interesting role compared to what he really did, and then the reviews were good so it was basically a bunch of these things together

 

[X-Maniac]

Doesn't matter. The older cast didn't need a "names trailer to sell". It is similar to the GA not being invested to Andrew Garfield's version of Spider-Man compare to the Tobey McGuire version. And it will happen again they got another actor to play Wolverine. Familarity always sell better than "talent". This is why recasting or doing prequel version of established characters don't usually translate to bigger box-office success especially X-Men is not even a box office juggernaut compare to the other franchises that had prequel films. This is basically strike 2 for the First Class cast. If I told you, Apocalypse would only earn 9 million more than First Class in North America, would you believe me? That right there, is quite alarming.

The older cast had a names trailer for X1, didn't they?

They were all unknowns back then and some of them weren't very well portrayed in the roles. They only developed familiarity by being in more movies.

I don't think the box office of Apocalypse is just down to the new young cast. No one seemed to have a problem with them. It was down to people not liking the villain, the story being too much of a re-tread and the pacing/structure of the screenplay.

 

[psylockolussus]

The older cast had a names trailer for X1, didn't they?

They were all unknowns back then and some of them weren't very well portrayed in the roles. They only developed familiarity by being in more movies.

I don't think the box office of Apocalypse is just down to the new young cast. No one seemed to have a problem with them. It was down to people not liking the villain, the story being too much of a re-tread and the pacing/structure of the screenplay.

A names trailer featuring the names of their characters, yes. But Fox didn't flash their real name one by one like those trailers for GOTG. And not releasing a names trailer is not the issue why it underperformed.

While the new young cast members are okay. I just don't think they are needed if Fox really wanted to keep the box-office momentum of the series especially right after DOFP/Deadpool. Not especially after the ending of DOFP. Why bring familiar faces only to introduce cast members in the next place to play the younger version of characters we just saw in DOFP? to complete a beginners trilogy? and look what happened now.

And before someone chimes in and says 'But Fox has a plan for these younger actors'... well WB had a plan for Zack Synder to direct the Justice League movies and oversee DCEU look what is happening here.

IMO, Fox needs to reevaluate their plan.

 

[X-Maniac]

Even the forgettable Thor: The Dark World gets 66 per cent on RT.

How the heck is that possible?

 

[GuestStar2004]

While the new young cast members are okay. I just don't think they are needed if Fox really wanted to keep the box-office momentum of the series especially right after DOFP/Deadpool.

Well wolverine 3 is next so the momentum for DOFP will be gone by then anyway if the momentum for that movie even still exists, as for deadpool totally that is a totally different beast.

And before someone chimes in and says 'But Fox has a plan for these younger actors'... well WB had a plan for Zack Synder to direct the Justice League movies and oversee DCEU look what is happening here.

Well Zack Synder is directing justice league 1 and 2, even after BVS

 

[psylockolussus]

Even the forgettable Thor: The Dark World gets 66 per cent on RT.

How the heck is that possible?

Because apparently there were enough critics that gave it a fresh rating.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Even the forgettable Thor: The Dark World gets 66 per cent on RT.

How the heck is that possible?

I remember alot more praise for that movie so i was quite surprised it was as low as 66 tbh

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Even the forgettable Thor: The Dark World gets 66 per cent on RT.

How the heck is that possible?

I would rate X-Men Apocalypse as a much better movie personally. Along with some others that got worse RT ratings. I loved the first Thor movie but was so disappointed in the sequel.

 

[psylockolussus]

No one really cares about Rotten Tomatoes anyway.

Actually people do care about Rotten Tomatoes and that site has been around for 10 years now and is quite popular with movie buffs. Fanboys care about Rotten Tomatoes and that is why Rotten Tomatoes threads are usually the longest threads in SHH. You search a film on google, you'll see the RT rating. It is always mentioned in Wikipedia film articles. Even studios brag when their movie gets a certified fresh rating from RT and includes it in the banner of their social media account. What critics also say about a movie reflects on the quality of the film. So its not as irrelevant as you think it is especially in the movie industry especially when critics could make or break a movie.

 

[X-Maniac]

A names trailer featuring the names of their characters, yes. But Fox didn't flash their real name one by one like those trailers for GOTG. And not releasing a names trailer is not the issue why it underperformed.

While the new young cast members are okay. I just don't think they are needed if Fox really wanted to keep the box-office momentum of the series especially right after DOFP/Deadpool. Not especially after the ending of DOFP. Why bring familiar faces only to introduce cast members in the next place to play the younger version of characters we just saw in DOFP? to complete a beginners trilogy? and look what happened now.

And before someone chimes in and says 'But Fox has a plan for these younger actors'... well WB had a plan for Zack Synder to direct the Justice League movies and oversee DCEU look what is happening here.

IMO, Fox needs to reevaluate their plan.

i think the absence of a names trailer that marketed the young cast is definitely part of the reason the film underperformed. although the movie itself needed to put more focus on them too...

No immediate follow-up was announced or intended anyway, they're now focused on Wolverine 3, Deadpool 2, Legion, etc.

 

[DavidHaller]

it breaks my heart a little bit that they haven't announced the next movie yet. Especially now that we have finally a great new proper X-Men team on our hands with Nightcrawler, Jean, Cyclops, Quicksilver, & Storm. I wished they would concentrate mainly on these characters (+ maybe re-cast and add Wolverine) and move quickly forward!

Deadpool and Wolverine are just not my cup of tea...