Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - - - - Part 13

[Davidstorm]

the hair of the storm in DP is still a mystery to me
in the photo of them in yellow suits, remembers the hair style that was used in DOFP only that more full, and in this photo of the funeral he appears to be smooth pulled back

 

[xrs13]

I just had a thought that more than any impact a death of Beast, Mystique or Magneto would have, I think Quicksilver dying would be a bigger shock. Plus it could be used to pull Magneto into the picture. If he is in genosha with mutants living peacefully, it would encourage him to act if his own son is killed. Beast could break the news and boom

On Storms hair... nothing anyone says will make it better ??

 

[Alessia]

I just had a thought that more than any impact a death of Beast, Mystique or Magneto would have, I think Quicksilver dying would be a bigger shock. Plus it could be used to pull Magneto into the picture. If he is in genosha with mutants living peacefully, it would encourage him to act if his own son is killed. Beast could break the news and boom

I kinda agree. I mean, I think it's pretty much given that Mystique's the one who meets her demise, so if the 'major twist' in the middle of the movie is only her death, then that's not really a twist, isn't it. Everyone pretty much expects it. But let's say that it was QS who bit it. The shock would be much bigger, especially considering that people actually like his character, while most couldn't care less about Mystique.
Also, Mags would probs have a more legitimate reason to try to take down Jean. But the thing is, Magneto had already lost his family twice, so I don't really see it happening for the third time.

But,

Spoiler

according to the leak Quicksilver does get badly injured by Jean and is never seen in the movie again after that, so who knows what happens to him.
Perhaps Hank indeed breaks the news to Magneto that Jean not only killed Mystique, but almost killed his only family member left and that's the reason
that pushes Magneto to help Hank take her down.

 

[DACrowe]

I didn't comment on the quality, just on the comic accuracy.

Actually you could see Tony beginning to mentor Peter even before Civil War in both the New Avengers and even some JMS Spidey stories. True, people may like them or not, and that’s up to them, but yeah the groundwork was there which is why when Civil War finally happened, it was easier for Peter to listen to Stark about revealing his secret ID.

Anyway, on to Dark Phoenix...

Does anyone think that maybe the reshoots may be them possibly adding a bigger role for some characters? Like Storm and Nightcrawler for example?

I just don't get why if it's in the comics it's considered good by some fans. The Iron Spider/Civil War/BiB/and OMD era was so bad it caused me to quit reading Spidey comics. And that was the general consensus.

This is part of a broader point though, where folks assume just because it's in the comics it should be just that way in the films. Oddly, I think how the MCU did it shows how much flexibility filmmakers should be allowed.

In Civil War, Tony was not a George W. Bush stand-in who loved sending other heroes to Gitmo/the Negative Zone. He was a concerned leader who tried desperately to keep heroes on the same page and turned on the government for creating "the Raft."

Tony didn't force Peter to commit suicide on television for his own ends, which led to Peter's aunt being shot by Kingpin (duh). Nor did Peter lose his complete common sense. He actually mentored a younger Peter (instead of one going on 30) to do what's best for Peter, and not his own political needs, and Peter didn't act like an idiot.

These were all drastic changes, but they worked to the movie's benefit.

 

[Tymminator]

I just don't get why if it's in the comics it's considered good by some fans. The Iron Spider/Civil War/BiB/and OMD era was so bad it caused me to quit reading Spidey comics. And that was the general consensus.

This is part of a broader point though, where folks assume just because it's in the comics it should be just that way in the films. Oddly, I think how the MCU did it shows how much flexibility filmmakers should be allowed.

In Civil War, Tony was not a George W. Bush stand-in who loved sending other heroes to Gitmo/the Negative Zone. He was a concerned leader who tried desperately to keep heroes on the same page and turned on the government for creating "the Raft."

Tony didn't force Peter to commit suicide on television for his own ends, which led to Peter's aunt being shot by Kingpin (duh). Nor did Peter lose his complete common sense. He actually mentored a younger Peter (instead of one going on 30) to do what's best for Peter, and not his own political needs, and Peter didn't act like an idiot.

These were all drastic changes, but they worked to the movie's benefit.

For clarification, I am not arguing one way or the other that it was automatically “good” or should be in the movies because it was in the Comics, I am simply saying the groundwork was there. If you or a lot of people liked it, loved it or hated it, it is not the point. The point is the idea that the MCU used re:Pete’s relationship to Stark had its roots from Bendis and JMS actually before Civil War. (before Mephisto and OMD erased that Stark-Parker relationship amoung other things) If you want to say you hate the idea that’s great, but that’s not what I was addressing.

For the rest you were saying I pretty much agree.

If you want to take this to a spidey-thread that’s cool, but I don’t want to bog down Dark Phoenix with Spider-man.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I kinda agree. I mean, I think it's pretty much given that Mystique's the one who meets her demise, so if the 'major twist' in the middle of the movie is only her death, then that's not really a twist, isn't it. Everyone pretty much expects it. But let's say that it was QS who bit it. The shock would be much bigger, especially considering that people actually like his character, while most couldn't care less about Mystique.
Also, Mags would probs have a more legitimate reason to try to take down Jean. But the thing is, Magneto had already lost his family twice, so I don't really see it happening for the third time.

Since most people got so hung up on Jennifer Lawrence Mystique that they never felt they would kill off the character i think its still a fairly big twist.

Another unexpected thing is that Mystique was around in the OT so most expect her to survive to modern day.

And Mystiques fate actually does more as a consequence.

1. She is Charles adopted sister.
2. Magneto probably still cares about Mystique after their history.
3. Beast obviously has strong feelings for her.
4. presumably the others have got to know her well also.

Its like saying even if it was quicksilver that was killed off that magneto would be the only one to care because he is his son in the comics and everyone else would be like... meh! because its just quicksilver and he isn't an X-Man in the comics. but no quicksilver would likely have just as much impact on all the characters, just not to the same degree of history like mystique has.

Although killing off quicksilver would be kinda dumb anyway.

 

[X-Maniac]

If Mystique does indeed bite the dust, then that means the original trilogy (where Mystique was alive in later years) is not part of the same timeline as the First Class films.

I doubt this is deliberate. They just don't care about continuity.

 

[magneto23]

If Mystique does indeed bite the dust, then that means the original trilogy (where Mystique was alive in later years) is not part of the same timeline as the First Class films.

I doubt this is deliberate. They just don't care about continuity.

What? DOFP already created a separate timeline.

 

[X-Maniac]

What? DOFP already created a separate timeline.

Well, true, and we didn't see Mystique in the happy ending of DoFP... but the expectation is that some version of the original trilogy events happened.

We know Jean didn't die in the altered timeline as she was in the happy ending of DoFP.

So I suppose we can assume Mystique wasn't part of any events during the same time period the original trilogy took place in.

 

[Drexelhand]

Well, true, and we didn't see Mystique in the happy ending of DoFP... but the expectation is that some version of the original trilogy events happened.

We know Jean didn't die in the altered timeline as she was in the happy ending of DoFP.

So I suppose we can assume Mystique wasn't part of any events during the same time period the original trilogy took place in.

Jean dies and comes back at least once every ten years since the 80s, so...

 

[Lip]

Nothing needs to be a direct translate from page to screen. Harry Potter wasn’t exact, none of the MCU or X-Men have been either. We don’t need he Shi’ar it Hellfire to tell the Dark Phoenix story. Anyone who says they need to be in this for it to work is just being unreasonable because no comic translation has been accurate. However what needs to be done correctly is the motivation, the characters, the reasoning for things happening. That’s why MCU does such a damn good job. Every character serves a purpose. Every character even if small has a fleshed our storyline. Homecoming, Infinity War haven’t exactly been comic accurate. But they are fantastic because the characters are right, the story is right. You can easily adapt Dark Phoenix to just be a about the X-Men and Jeans struggle but if the filmmakers fall into the same issues as they did with Last Stand, Origins and Apocalypse and just have things happen just cause then that’s the underlying issue. And that’s been the underlying issue with what’s wrong with those three I mentioned. We don’t know for sure if Dark Phoenix is like that just yet. But they could nail the characters and the story and if it makes sense then it could work. But at this stage it’s 50/50 and we need to just wait and see.

About the use of the characters, getting them right, giving them a role and motivations, I agree 100% and I've talked about this issue they have with the characters many times before here.

But I'll just address the adaptation of The Dark Phoenix Saga and another problem they have with the X-Men movies.

I agree that, at its core, The Dark Phoenix is about Jean's internal struggle and the sacrifices she makes. And yes, I agree you can make a good Dark Phoenix movie out of that, leaving Shi'ar and the Hellfire behind. At least replacing them by similar elements. But... why?

The Dark Phoenix is a story about Jean, yes, but it's also known as an intergalactic cosmic adventure. One of the most popular ones in comicbooks. That's a defining part of the story too. The heart of it lies in Jean? Yeah. Can you do it without high fantasy and sci-fi cosmic elements? Absolutey. But still, why? And I can't help myself but remember their version of Galactus when I think of this.

At its core, The Lord of the Rings is a story about a group of small people (basically, children), overcoming their weakness in an outside world much bigger than them. Do you need to ground the fantasy to make it work? No. It worked in the books and it worked in movies too. It stirred emotions anyway, it was relatable anyway, it was believable anyway. Even with all that fantasy.

I won't even bring up the lack of faith they have in the material, because that's not only blatantly obvious by now, but also it is constantly debated here. The thing is that FOX and the filmmakers here seem to believe they can only make the story believable and relatable if they ground the story. And what they don't seem to understand is that sometimes they end up making things worse.

By trying to ground their fantasy they bring unnecessary questions and attention to what they think it's ridiculous. Coming up with the Fantastic Four name was so cringy. Convincing the horsemen instead of brainwashing them only raised questions. Justifying the colorful hairs is eyerolling. I remember watching XMA and the whole audience bursting into laughter when Apocalypse is leaaaarning. And the ironic thing is that Thanos had such an over the top goal and motivation, and yet, his arc was far more relatable and engaging to people than Apocalypse's was.

The audience can take fantasy. The audience understand what superhero movies are and what to expect from them. So if Kinberg wants to follow his grounded vision of this story, fine. But the filmmakers behind the X-Men movies need to understand too that they don't have to ground the fantasy to make a believable, relatable and emotional story. I cried my eyes off watching Lord of the Rings. And we're living in an era of successful movies with talking trees and talking raccoons.

 

[Elayis]

What I don't understand is why they aren't doing more to differentiate Dark Phoenix from TLS. If you're going to adapt the same story twice (and the first time was nearly "in name only"), shouldn't the big selling point of the new version be that it's more faithful to the source material? Why is this film merely attempting to be a better version of TLS, instead of a more comic booky story that fans have desperately wanted?

I like that Kinberg is attempting to do a more adult and serious film, but it's not what audiences are demanding, and I doubt he has to chops to pull it off anyways. People are not flocking to mature, grounded comic book movies (Logan's been the only recent success of that kind, and it also cost about half of what I assume DP's budget is).

Like you said, Lip, why does Fox refuse to accept that these are comic book movies, especially when it seems to be working so well for Marvel. Do they dislike money and critical acclaim? I think it's no accident that their most successful movie was also their most fun and crowd pleasing.

 

[x-er]

If Mystique does indeed bite the dust, then that means the original trilogy (where Mystique was alive in later years) is not part of the same timeline as the First Class films.

I doubt this is deliberate. They just don't care about continuity.

Time split in two at Days of Future Past. One the one hand, there's the much more interesting universe created by Singer and, on the other side, there's the Jennifer Lawrence-laden XMen still telling stories in the past and now dragging Deadpool along a few decades back in order to make themselves feel less extraneous within their own franchise. And now fans are stuck with the X-Men in the past and our beloved original timeline which is in the present is a thing of the past, as ironic as that sounds.

And, yes, this is deliberate, but they care more about money than about continuity. Fox took a cheap way out by putting the X-Men in a pre-millenial timeline, but if you realize something now, they can't secure a director for gambit and they lost Singer (the man that practically saved the franchise) and now I hear they're bowing out. Because they shot themselves in the foot. For the nth time.

Mystique should have bid farewell to the X-universe at Days of Future Past. No Lawrence means they could've had the budget to film X5. Lawrence also dislikes being in the blue and she can't pull off the villain we all despise. Giving into her demands completely ruined Fox's adaptation of the source material.

 

[x-er]

Deadpool should not be linked to the First Class crew, there should have been one final First Class film in the past to tie any lose ends, and X5 should've picked up from there, bringing back whoever's still within budget, recasting the rest or using CGI (like Colossus) for all others. We never saw good development for Emma Frost, Gambit, Rogue, Shadowcat, Angel, and so on.

For me, an ideal roster for X5-X7 would've been Emma Frost, Cyclops, Shadowcat, Beast, Colossus, X-23. And maybe supporting roles from Bishop, Storm and Iceman.

Somewhere in there, I would consider temporarily throwing Rogue & Gambit in the Brotherhood along with Magneto, QS, Toad, Pyro and the Blob. Maybe Blink. Just a thought.

You've got so many stories left to tell, there's Whedon's take on Emma Frost, the Morlocks, Asteroid M (or wherever Magneto takes his mutant nation), there's the mission to save Hope Summers (Messiah Complex/Second Coming), Rogue leaving the Brotherhood to join the X-Men, the Gambit & Rogue crossed-lover story, and so many others fans here know and love. That would've been better than getting Dark Phoenix rehash of sorts and Jennifer Lawrence's face all over the place.

 

[psylockolussus]

Thing is even Fox decided to make X5 to X7 after Dark PhoeniX underperformed, they won't get to. They are now in the finish line unless of course somehow Disney doesn't get Fox neXt year.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Mystique should have bid farewell to the X-universe at Days of Future Past. No Lawrence means they could've had the budget to film X5.

Well Apocalypse and even Dark phoenix still costs less than X3

 

[2kt09]

What I don't understand is why they aren't doing more to differentiate Dark Phoenix from TLS. If you're going to adapt the same story twice (and the first time was nearly "in name only"), shouldn't the big selling point of the new version be that it's more faithful to the source material? Why is this film merely attempting to be a better version of TLS, instead of a more comic booky story that fans have desperately wanted?

I like that Kinberg is attempting to do a more adult and serious film, but it's not what audiences are demanding, and I doubt he has to chops to pull it off anyways. People are not flocking to mature, grounded comic book movies (Logan's been the only recent success of that kind, and it also cost about half of what I assume DP's budget is).

Like you said, Lip, why does Fox refuse to accept that these are comic book movies, especially when it seems to be working so well for Marvel. Do they dislike money and critical acclaim? I think it's no accident that their most successful movie was also their most fun and crowd pleasing.

The big selling point here is that there's more focus on Jean, there are aliens involved, and that the "adult and serious" approach is a means to spread out the big set pieces to focus more on character and plot. There are ofc other differences which the various leaks have gone over with one similarity from TLS and that's it.

 

[x-er]

If they're giving up, then they should just pull off all the random X-Men movies and spinoffs they can. No need to create a last-minute universe. After all, movies like Logan and Deadpool 1 were great standalones.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Deadpool wasn't a stand alone. infact if anything Deadpool is the only spin off so far that was created outside of the X-Men but was still part of the same universe.

 

[henzINNIT]

Why is this film merely attempting to be a better version of TLS, instead of a more comic booky story that fans have desperately wanted?

Fox don't understand the implications of "doing Phoenix right". They think they'll earn fan respect by making a more watchable film than TLS. They don't know what people want from this story. They can't admit that X3 was a disaster, so the obvious industry lie is to be more "true to the comics". We all know the film will be substantially different from source. Every film has been. Kinberg is going to turn in his best Bryan Singer impression as it's the franchise tone and the guy he learnt a lot from. This film isn't made to be loved by anyone. It's the calculation of an out of touch studio.

Was Singer ever attached to this early on? At least then Fox could sell it more as "the film we should have seen". Funny that a Phoenix film has followed both of his exits.

 

[kevork89]

About the use of the characters, getting them right, giving them a role and motivations, I agree 100% and I've talked about this issue they have with the characters many times before here.

But I'll just address the adaptation of The Dark Phoenix Saga and another problem they have with the X-Men movies.

I agree that, at its core, The Dark Phoenix is about Jean's internal struggle and the sacrifices she makes. And yes, I agree you can make a good Dark Phoenix movie out of that, leaving Shi'ar and the Hellfire behind. At least replacing them by similar elements. But... why?

The Dark Phoenix is a story about Jean, yes, but it's also known as an intergalactic cosmic adventure. One of the most popular ones in comicbooks. That's a defining part of the story too. The heart of it lies in Jean? Yeah. Can you do it without high fantasy and sci-fi cosmic elements? Absolutey. But still, why? And I can't help myself but remember their version of Galactus when I think of this.

At its core, The Lord of the Rings is a story about a group of small people (basically, children), overcoming their weakness in an outside world much bigger than them. Do you need to ground the fantasy to make it work? No. It worked in the books and it worked in movies too. It stirred emotions anyway, it was relatable anyway, it was believable anyway. Even with all that fantasy.

I won't even bring up the lack of faith they have in the material, because that's not only blatantly obvious by now, but also it is constantly debated here. The thing is that FOX and the filmmakers here seem to believe they can only make the story believable and relatable if they ground the story. And what they don't seem to understand is that sometimes they end up making things worse.

By trying to ground their fantasy they bring unnecessary questions and attention to what they think it's ridiculous. Coming up with the Fantastic Four name was so cringy. Convincing the horsemen instead of brainwashing them only raised questions. Justifying the colorful hairs is eyerolling. I remember watching XMA and the whole audience bursting into laughter when Apocalypse is leaaaarning. And the ironic thing is that Thanos had such an over the top goal and motivation, and yet, his arc was far more relatable and engaging to people than Apocalypse's was.

The audience can take fantasy. The audience understand what superhero movies are and what to expect from them. So if Kinberg wants to follow his grounded vision of this story, fine. But the filmmakers behind the X-Men movies need to understand too that they don't have to ground the fantasy to make a believable, relatable and emotional story. I cried my eyes off watching Lord of the Rings. And we're living in an era of successful movies with talking trees and talking raccoons.

I get ya. Definitely some good points. And you are right.

 

[Tymminator]

About the use of the characters, getting them right, giving them a role and motivations, I agree 100% and I've talked about this issue they have with the characters many times before here.

But I'll just address the adaptation of The Dark Phoenix Saga and another problem they have with the X-Men movies.

I agree that, at its core, The Dark Phoenix is about Jean's internal struggle and the sacrifices she makes. And yes, I agree you can make a good Dark Phoenix movie out of that, leaving Shi'ar and the Hellfire behind. At least replacing them by similar elements. But... why?

The Dark Phoenix is a story about Jean, yes, but it's also known as an intergalactic cosmic adventure. One of the most popular ones in comicbooks. That's a defining part of the story too. The heart of it lies in Jean? Yeah. Can you do it without high fantasy and sci-fi cosmic elements? Absolutey. But still, why? And I can't help myself but remember their version of Galactus when I think of this.

At its core, The Lord of the Rings is a story about a group of small people (basically, children), overcoming their weakness in an outside world much bigger than them. Do you need to ground the fantasy to make it work? No. It worked in the books and it worked in movies too. It stirred emotions anyway, it was relatable anyway, it was believable anyway. Even with all that fantasy.

I won't even bring up the lack of faith they have in the material, because that's not only blatantly obvious by now, but also it is constantly debated here. The thing is that FOX and the filmmakers here seem to believe they can only make the story believable and relatable if they ground the story. And what they don't seem to understand is that sometimes they end up making things worse.

By trying to ground their fantasy they bring unnecessary questions and attention to what they think it's ridiculous. Coming up with the Fantastic Four name was so cringy. Convincing the horsemen instead of brainwashing them only raised questions. Justifying the colorful hairs is eyerolling. I remember watching XMA and the whole audience bursting into laughter when Apocalypse is leaaaarning. And the ironic thing is that Thanos had such an over the top goal and motivation, and yet, his arc was far more relatable and engaging to people than Apocalypse's was.

The audience can take fantasy. The audience understand what superhero movies are and what to expect from them. So if Kinberg wants to follow his grounded vision of this story, fine. But the filmmakers behind the X-Men movies need to understand too that they don't have to ground the fantasy to make a believable, relatable and emotional story. I cried my eyes off watching Lord of the Rings. And we're living in an era of successful movies with talking trees and talking raccoons.

Great post.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Its about tonal balance more then anything else.

Its like looking at Logan and Mangold saying the comic outfit didn't fit the tone they were going for, while fans would instantly say thats BS and they should just have done it anyway, its still a case of the director doing whats best for the tone and to a certain degree the legacy of the franchise.

Now it could be argued that DOFP has time travel and robots, Apocalypse delt with an all power god like being, and Dark phoenix is gonna have aliens for the first time in the franchise history so there is a fair amount of fantasy there anyway... but its still about tonal balance in the long run.

 

[magneto23]

What I don't understand is why they aren't doing more to differentiate Dark Phoenix from TLS.

What I don't understand is why I'm seeing so many blanket statements like this one. The official news and leaks paint a substantially different picture than TLS.

 

[psylockolussus]

If they're giving up, then they should just pull off all the random X-Men movies and spinoffs they can.

That's Dark PhoeniX, Gambit, the New Mutants, Gambit, Laura, Kitty Pryde and Multiple Man for you.