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

[X-Maniac]

He's just not a big seller. I don't think he had a film that performed really big because of his name. Wanted was mostly seen as an Angelina Jolie movie to the GA, while Keira Knightley was hot in the media when Atonement was released. I don't think a lot of people remember that he was in the Narnia movie. And his movie with Daniel Radcliffe bombed last year.

That's such old-fashioned thinking. These days, people don't go to see films just because of the actors who are in it. It's far more complicated than that.

Guardians of the Galaxy was a hit because of the cool concept. It had no megastars in it at all.

Will Smith has been said on here to be the reason Suicide Squad was a hit. But Will Smith couldn't make Concussion (2015) or After Earth into a smash hit.

Tom Cruise has been in flops, such as Rock of Ages. And also Edge of Tomorrow was not a massive hit, it didn't get its budget back in the USA.

Other big stars such as Russell Crowe and Arnold Schwarzenegger have also been in flops.

 

[chamber-music]

Most people these days don't see movies because of the actors. People like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine but a number of other movies he starred in didn't do well. RDJ, Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lawrence and Ryan Reynolds all had flop movies outside the mega franchisees they front.

People liking actors in certain roles does not mean they will turn up for any movie that actor appears in.

Casting a big name actor and just expecting a movie to do well because of that actors star power alone just doesn't happen anymore.

James McAvoy doesn't do that many Hollywood mass appeal or blockbuster type movies. McAvoy does a lot of theater and smaller British movies. Not every actor is trying to be a Tom Cruise or Will Smith type leading man

 

[Smilodon]

Especially in the case of superheroes, where the superhero takes precedent over the actor these days. RDJ, Chris Evans, Jennifer Lawrence, Hugh Jackman etc. They're not themselves but rather Stark, Cap, Katniss, Wolverine etc to most people.

 

[Mystique's Leg]

Especially in the case of superheroes, where the superhero takes precedent over the actor these days. RDJ, Chris Evans, Jennifer Lawrence, Hugh Jackman etc. They're not themselves but rather Stark, Cap, Katniss, Wolverine etc to most people.

True, and I think the way everything becomes a product/franchise, the status of actors/actresses is lower nowadays (aside from how much money the likes of RDJ and JLaw get). There are so many blockbusters, people can't digest everything and a true blockbusters needs to be 'an event', random/unforseen effects, luck, something special, new,... . The bar is extemely high (which is not a bad thing). It has become more than the big names attached to a movie.

Understandably, only few movies succeed at that: Avatar, The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Jurassic World,... . While not as big, DOFP was quite a 'memorable moment' as shown at the boxoffice and in its very concept. X-Men Apocalypse is just a decent blockbuster.

It's not simple though. I can't understand how franchises like Transformers or Fast & Furious succeed (they don't have to offer anything I like) and why Paramount completely failed to create 'an event' out of the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.

 

[psylockolussus]

That's such old-fashioned thinking. These days, people don't go to see films just because of the actors who are in it. It's far more complicated than that.

Guardians of the Galaxy was a hit because of the cool concept. It had no megastars in it at all.

Will Smith has been said on here to be the reason Suicide Squad was a hit. But Will Smith couldn't make Concussion (2015) or After Earth into a smash hit.

Tom Cruise has been in flops, such as Rock of Ages. And also Edge of Tomorrow was not a massive hit, it didn't get its budget back in the USA.

Other big stars such as Russell Crowe and Arnold Schwarzenegger have also been in flops.

No one is saying that every blockbuster should have an A-lister but still, having an A-lister is sometimes a big factor that could help boost the film's box-office success (Malificent says hi to you) and sometimes having an A-lister doesn't guarantee success (as I have pointed out before with Jennifer Lawrence appearing in X-Men Apocalypse). And still it does not change the fact that James McAvoy is not a big seller and not in the calibre of appeal of Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds towards the public.

 

[DavidHaller]

No one is saying that every blockbuster should have an A-lister but still, having an A-lister is sometimes a big factor that could help boost the film's box-office success (Malificent says hi to you) and sometimes having an A-lister doesn't guarantee success (as I have pointed out before with Jennifer Lawrence appearing in X-Men Apocalypse). And still it does not change the fact that James McAvoy is not a big seller and not in the calibre of appeal of Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds towards the public.

what you completely miss to see is the fact that Charles Xavier is also not a character that has a similar mass appeal like characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor etc.

All these actors exploded through their roles and became boxoffice hits because of the MALE NORMATIVITY these characters embody. Xavier is a very vulnerable, empathetic character that does not attract the same audience like Thor's white masculinity or Deadpool's male puberty humor!

McAvoy is obviously one of the most talented actors in a comic book movies at the moment. His talents and artistry sets him apart from all the commercial actors you named!

If the X-Men franchise wants commercial success they only have to re-cast Wolverine with a big name or cast a character like Cable with a big macho guy. But Singer is way too talented and educated to just follow these easy dumb mainstream formulas...

 

[iacobusleo]

what you completely miss to see is the fact that Charles Xavier is also not a character that has a similar mass appeal like characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor etc.

All these actors exploded through their roles and became boxoffice hits because of the MALE NORMATIVITY these characters embody. Xavier is a very vulnerable, empathetic character that does not attract the same audience like Thor's white masculinity or Deadpool's male puberty humor!

I won't go so far as to say that people LOVE Thor because of white masculinity, but there is some truth to your words. In my experience, all my friends swoon/admire Fassbender's masculine Magneto as opposed to the more sensitive Xavier (although there is Xavier/McAvoy love on places like Tumblr).

 

[DavidHaller]

I won't go so far as to say that people LOVE Thor because of white masculinity, but there is some truth to your words. In my experience, all my friends swoon/admire Fassbender's masculine Magneto as opposed to the more sensitive Xavier (although there is Xavier/McAvoy love on places like Tumblr).

well, there is also some serious McAvoy/Fassbender love on tumblr.

 

[chamber-music]

It's not simple though. I can't understand how franchises like Transformers or Fast & Furious succeed (they don't have to offer anything I like) and why Paramount completely failed to create 'an event' out of the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.

I think Transformers and Fast & Furious are successful because they offer spectacle. Both have big action set pieces which go down well with audiences. Fast & Furious also has a group of family and friends for the audience to get invested in.

 

[psylockolussus]

what you completely miss to see is the fact that Charles Xavier is also not a character that has a similar mass appeal like characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor etc.

All these actors exploded through their roles and became boxoffice hits because of the MALE NORMATIVITY these characters embody. Xavier is a very vulnerable, empathetic character that does not attract the same audience like Thor's white masculinity or Deadpool's male puberty humor!

McAvoy is obviously one of the most talented actors in a comic book movies at the moment. His talents and artistry sets him apart from all the commercial actors you named!

If the X-Men franchise wants commercial success they only have to re-cast Wolverine with a big name or cast a character like Cable with a big macho guy. But Singer is way too talented and educated to just follow these easy dumb mainstream formulas...

Doesn't change the fact that he's not a big draw which was my point.

 

[DavidHaller]

Doesn't change the fact that he's not a big draw which was my point.

I really dislike you. Shouldn't you be somewhere in the Suicide Squad or Batman vs. Superman forum? No idea, what people like you see in the X-Men franchise that attracts them...

(well, obivously Psylocke's Jim Lee costume...)

 

[MadVillainy]

The hell?

 

[X-Maniac]

No one is saying that every blockbuster should have an A-lister but still, having an A-lister is sometimes a big factor that could help boost the film's box-office success (Malificent says hi to you) and sometimes having an A-lister doesn't guarantee success (as I have pointed out before with Jennifer Lawrence appearing in X-Men Apocalypse). And still it does not change the fact that James McAvoy is not a big seller and not in the calibre of appeal of Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds towards the public.

I really doubt J-Law has that much appeal as an actress. The Hunger Games had massive appeal, so she pulled in a big fanbase because of that. But would all those Hunger Games fans rush to see her in X-Men? I doubt it. Especially when she moaned about the make-up and looked like she didn't want to be there.

She didn't bring any spark to the role at all. When a supermodel (Rebecca) can bring more edge and depth to a character than little miss Oscar-winner, you know something is up. When J-Law appeared on the Graham Norton chat show in the UK, they showed a clip from XM:A (where she talks to Xavier at the mansion) and she hated what she saw and said she was "a wildly bad actress." She just isn't into these films, she didn't even study acting and she seems to have a generally negative demeanour about everything. Good riddance. She's done nothing for this franchise to be honest.

As for McAvoy, he's just not leading man material. He's great but he just doesn't have megastar presence. That's no criticism of him, it's just the aura/status he has, it's where he fits in Hollywood's hierarchy. But that shouldn't matter anyway, because Xavier is not meant to lead the franchise - and the public will never accept such a non-action character as the headliner of a superhero series. Fox's tendency to try to make him front and centre doesn't work. So, McAvoy is fine for the role, but the tendency to make the role so central when the more dynamic characters are sidelined has not brought much success.

In the X-Men films, everyone is so moody and neurotic, battling with inner demons. It's just too much. Too many characters are haunted by some inner conflict and it lowers the tone of the movies into something quite glum and gloomy. Wolverine's struggle with his past, Jean's struggle with her powers, Cyclops' struggle with his powers, Xavier's struggle with whether he suppresses or accepts his students' powers, Magneto's struggle with his family tragedies. It's all a bit heavy for a superhero movie. At times we need a lighter touch.

Deadpool dealt with a character having cancer and then being experimented on but it didn't bring the whole movie down into a gloomy moody drama.

 

[superweirdo87]

McAvoy isn't a big seller, but few people are. In terms of the contrast to Reynolds, Reynolds was deemed box office poison because of how some of his movies before Deadpool did.

Plenty of his movies did poorly over the past few years.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I really doubt J-Law has that much appeal as an actress. The Hunger Games had massive appeal, so she pulled in a big fanbase because of that. But would all those Hunger Games fans rush to see her in X-Men? I doubt it. Especially when she moaned about the make-up and looked like she didn't want to be there.

She didn't bring any spark to the role at all. When a supermodel (Rebecca) can bring more edge and depth to a character than little miss Oscar-winner, you know something is up. When J-Law appeared on the Graham Norton chat show in the UK, they showed a clip from XM:A (where she talks to Xavier at the mansion) and she hated what she saw and said she was "a wildly bad actress." She just isn't into these films, she didn't even study acting and she seems to have a generally negative demeanour about everything. Good riddance. She's done nothing for this franchise to be honest.

As for McAvoy, he's just not leading man material. He's great but he just doesn't have megastar presence. That's no criticism of him, it's just the aura/status he has, it's where he fits in Hollywood's hierarchy. But that shouldn't matter anyway, because Xavier is not meant to lead the franchise - and the public will never accept such a non-action character as the headliner of a superhero series. Fox's tendency to try to make him front and centre doesn't work. So, McAvoy is fine for the role, but the tendency to make the role so central when the more dynamic characters are sidelined has not brought much success.

In the X-Men films, everyone is so moody and neurotic, battling with inner demons. It's just too much. Too many characters are haunted by some inner conflict and it lowers the tone of the movies into something quite glum and gloomy. Wolverine's struggle with his past, Jean's struggle with her powers, Cyclops' struggle with his powers, Xavier's struggle with whether he suppresses or accepts his students' powers, Magneto's struggle with his family tragedies. It's all a bit heavy for a superhero movie. At times we need a lighter touch.

Deadpool dealt with a character having cancer and then being experimented on but it didn't bring the whole movie down into a gloomy moody drama.

lets also not forget the Mocking Jay films did not fair so well at box office either... most franchises when approaching the end tend to build up audiences not diminish them. I don't think Jlaw has the mass appeal some want to make her out to have.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

McAvoy isn't a big seller, but few people are. In terms of the contrast to Reynolds, Reynolds was deemed box office poison because of how some of his movies before Deadpool did.

Plenty of his movies did poorly over the past few years.

that's because Ryan only works best in comedy format... whenever he's serious or heartfelt he doesn't really come off the greatest.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Ryan renolds R.I.P.D. flopped pretty bad for what its budget was and it was a comedy but if we are going by the idea he has to do his deadpool or blade 3 act every movie then that isn't saying much about his career.

 

[chamber-music]

Deadpool was a perfect role for Reynolds. Certain actors just find a role that fits them perfectly and audiences love seeing them play that role.

Jennifer Lawrence has had bombs as well. Her 2014 movie Serena flopped.

 

[Havok83]

Reynolds was amazing as Deadpool in Wolverine Origins. When I said Gambit was one of the only two good thing about that film, his Deadpool was the other. I had confidence in his ability going into the film bc he nailed it the first time. The only concern was the potential script but thankfully it was good. He was never going to be the issue for why the film could potentially suck

 

[NotNickFury]

Reynolds was amazing as Deadpool in Wolverine Origins. When I said Gambit was one of the only two good thing about that film, his Deadpool was the other. I had confidence in his ability going into the film bc he nailed it the first time. The only concern was the potential script but thankfully it was good. He was never going to be the issue for why the film could potentially suck

He was a good Wade Wilson, I'll admit, and I liked his dry one-liners, but then the movie closed his mouth.

 

[X-Maniac]

Reynolds was great as Wade in Origins, and as the proper Deadpool in his own solo reboot flick.

That's because Reynolds LOVES the character AND is a good fit for the character.

You can tell when actors love the characters and when directors love the material. They invest themselves in getting it right and in giving an authentic performance.

Those things can really shine through. Either that or their COMMITMENT to the role/character makes it work (like Rebecca Romijn as Mystique).

When someone phones it in, it does show (hello Jennifer Lawrence).

 

[Guard82]

Those things can really shine through. Either that or their COMMITMENT to the role/character makes it work (like Rebecca Romijn as Mystique).

Yeah, Rebecca was awesome because you could tell that she really committed to the role of Mystique and made her a memorable character. That deserves kudos especially because Mystique was a rather secondary character in the first X-Men film, but Rebecca still did such a great job that she was given even more to do in X2.

 

[superweirdo87]

Another noteworthy point on Reynold's name is that it didn't do much for Green Lantern, and it's not like he broke out with the public after Green Latern and before Deadpool. Chris Pratt also was not a household name before Guardians. Some might point to his TV work, but that did not do much for his indie movies at the box office.

 

[def28]

Everyone knew who Reynolds was though. It's just his mainstream films didn't look good for the most part.

I believe it was said his name drew in 42% of audiences on the week of release for Deadpool. So he had that star power.

He advertised the **** out of Deadpool across many platforms in a way that was never really done before. Which allowed many of the audience to like him in the role before the film was even released. Heck, people young and old were having a blast just with the theatre stands.

 

[psylockolussus]

Origins had a good cast well except for Will.i.am and the actress that played Emma Silverfox.