Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - - - - - - Part 15

I do think Fox misread the critic and audience reaction to APOCALYPSE. That was probably a case of franchise fatigue more than actual quality/approach, and I think they read it as "people want what we've always given them with more grounded superhero fare, not this new, zanier direction we tried." APOCALYPSE went bigger and broader than previous entries have, but even given the response to it, given the current climate of superhero films, audiences weren't and aren't exactly clamoring for smaller, serious character study type superhero fare (save us, Matt Reeves!). Even LOGAN, which had elements of that, had some pretty big action/humor to go along with it. DARK PHOENIX had some action, but not a lot, and was relatively somber compared to other comic book movies. And marketed as such.

The reshoots thing keeps coming up in articles, and its obvious there was tinkering done, but that was hardly the main issue with this movie. As reshoots go, those actually turned out pretty well, and the third act is arguably a highlight of the movie. It's really the middle of the film that's the problem, its just inconsistent.

If Feige's comments leading up to Dark Phoenix about when we'd see the X-Men in the MCU are to be believed, I think we were in for a long break regardless.

Although if that break includes a revival of the animated series...
 
Wow, even LSD is disowning the recent films

I’m just glad the slate is being wiped clean for good. The FoX-Men deserved better than Simon Kinberg.
 
Wow, even LSD is disowning the recent films

I’m just glad the slate is being wiped clean for good. The FoX-Men deserved better than Simon Kinberg.


It's time to welcome his successor, Scott Buck. :o
 
I never in a million years thought the X-Men would become almost as tainted a brand as Fantastic Four but here we are. Very sad that this is happening. :csad:
 
I never in a million years thought the X-Men would become almost as tainted a brand as Fantastic Four but here we are. Very sad that this is happening. :csad:
They’re still nowhere close. X-men has had multiple films that are good to great. Fantastic Four has only ever had films that were considered okay guilty pleasures to dumpster fires.

Fox X-men ended on a down note, but they’re one film away from being back. Marvel will give them a few years of down time, and when they come back people will be ready.

And FYI, I haven’t even bothered to watch DP because I had no interest in it after apocalypse, but the franchise still isn’t as low as F4 is.
 
The idea of the original cast facing Apocalypse sounds more exciting to me. But honetly, I don't think it would be much different. The movie would be a mess anyway.

So, I guess I'm glad the original cast had a somewhat decent goodbye in both DoFP and Logan. Although I don't think having 1 or 2 lines can be considered a good send off.
 
The idea of the original cast facing Apocalypse sounds more exciting to me. But honetly, I don't think it would be much different. The movie would be a mess anyway.

So, I guess I'm glad the original cast had a somewhat decent goodbye in both DoFP and Logan. Although I don't think having 1 or 2 lines can be considered a good send off.

It wouldn’t have the Weapon X scene to derail it and we wouldn’t have to deal with origin stories.
 
I bet you LSD will be involved with the MCU films. I think Feige has a great relationship with her. Hell he worked under her Husband for years alongside Geoff Johns.
 
Hollywood Reporter said:
However, insiders tell THR that the move was to placate James Cameron, Fox’s most important filmmaker, and his concerns for his movie, Alita: Battle Angel. According to one source, Cameron felt Alita would lose horribly when facing a December opening weekend that included Aquaman and Bumblebee, with Mary Poppins Returns opening up two days earlier. He wanted his expensive movie shifted. Stacey Snider, according to this source, obliged, giving Alita the February date and moving Dark Phoenix to June. “Emma, Hutch and Simon begged her not do it,” says this source.

I 100% agree with Snider here. Fox needs James Cameron more than he needs them. Given the choice between Cameron and the clowns that are responsible for Dark Phoenix, I'd give the latter the middle finger every time.
 
The idea of the original cast facing Apocalypse sounds more exciting to me. But honetly, I don't think it would be much different. The movie would be a mess anyway.
Hate “what if’s” but it really was a missed opportunity not using the original cast for Apocalypse. It easily would have been less messy because they wouldn’t need to waste time reintroducing the main team, Jennifer Lawrence wouldn’t be there to hog screen time and we wouldn’t need to throw in random 80s themes. That alone would have given more time to flesh out Apocalypse as a threat.
 
Why a ‘Dark Phoenix’ movie could never do the beloved ‘X-Men’ story line justice

As a collector/reader since 1983 and one who reread my trade paperback of The Dark Phoenix Saga so many times it fell apart, I wholeheartedly agree with the article above. To capture the emotional gravity of the story which made it so potent and one of the greatest Marvel epics ever told, at a minimum it would require a trilogy, but ideally a full season in a high-end X-Men TV show ...perhaps in its third season after lots of character development and transformations.
 
Here's an interview editor Lee Smith did discussing Dark Phoenix's reshoots (which he helped supervise while Kinberg was rewriting):

HULLFISH: Were there structural changes that had to happen in editing that were different from the script?

SMITH: Oh yeah. Dark Phoenix did go through a lot of changes. There were some decisions made where we had to change the film after principal photography was completed, and we went back and did quite an extensive reshoot, which I’ve really never done before. It was kind of fascinating because we got to basically have the film built, and then a whole chunk of it was going to be very different, so it had to be reshot.

I got to work with the director to create a new ending to a movie because now we had a movie that existed and we had to fold into it and it was very very tricky and complicated and it was a huge budget. We did a lot of previs and a lot of testing to try and figure out whether this was going to be the thing that everyone wanted prior to shooting it. So that was very different for me.

I got to work with storyboard artists. I don’t normally do that, and previs people, which I have done. It was just a whole process to basically rejig the ending of the movie. We did it and I think it turned out pretty seamless. I don’t think anyone would know. Aside from when they read your article, Steve.

HULLFISH: Working with those storyboard artists — was that because the director had so much faith in you that he figured that you would know what you needed to cut the scene together eventually? Or because he was off doing something else?

SMITH: He was also writing and working with the writers and what they would do is, they’d give ideas and then we’d storyboard them because it was the fastest way to start to see how we could get this to work. Because it was a bit of a complex weaving job that we had to do — several things had to be injected into the film prior to the final scene — the easiest way for everyone to sit through a screening and understand it was to storyboard it and throw up a lot of changes. You could actually start to storyboard it and realize that the location that was being talked about wasn’t necessarily the best location when you watch the film running into it. So, we’d re-storyboard it and put it in a different location.

The action was heavily storyboarded And you can realize that you only want this much action and now we’re getting overloaded. Now we’re dominating one character and we really need to introduce another character. The studio, quite rightly, wants these things storyboarded because they want to see what they’re going to spend their money on. And it also helped us to narrow it down. And I think when we shot it, it was a very surgical shoot. It was a very big shoot, but it was very surgical. Everything we shot went in. We really had to be sure that this is what we wanted, and also be sure that we got it because there certainly wasn’t any going back again. You’re dealing with actors that have very complicated scheduling issues, there was a lot of actors in Dark Phoenix that are all very heavily booked, so the whole scheduling was — in itself — a nightmare. I wouldn’t want to be a first assistant director for any money.

HULLFISH: Was it interesting for you to again be back in dailies at the end of a movie basically?

SMITH: It was really weird. We were all back up in Montreal. We’re sitting there getting dailies and I said, “Isn’t this weird?” We were hustling so fast to get it done and there was a lot of complex stunt work going on. You really didn’t have time to think. Everyone was so hyped up with checking and rechecking that we’re getting everything, because, actors’ availabilities are so tight that signing off on people was pretty hairy. A couple of times we jumped back in to get a couple of extra shots because when we started to see the footage we’d say, “It’d be so cool if we had Fassbender do this.” And they’d say, Great! We’ve got an hour as he’s traveling between one set to another and the second unit guy would grab him and squeeze the shot off. It’s pretty thrilling really. And the great thing is, we got it! It was a real adrenaline rush to get it happening.

HULLFISH: Was that a dark period for the production or the director or producing team or editorial team when you realized, this is not going to work unless we do this hairy reshoot?

SMITH: Not really because it wasn’t that it wasn’t going to work. It’s a complex issue which is about basically ownership of characters. I don’t want to get into the whole thing because I don’t know how much I can say. We could have done an easier retrofit, but it wouldn’t have been satisfying. So, to their credit, the studio said, “Now that we’ve had this problem put to us, let’s come up with what’s the perfect world solution? What do we want to happen?” And that’s what we did. So all credit to them because basically you could have done an ad hoc version and it would have been OK. But, “in for a penny in for a pound.” So there was no darkness because it wasn’t like, “You’ve made a film and we don’t want that.” It’s like you’ve made a film and we have to change that. And it’s like, “OK, so if we have to change it, let’s make it better?”

ART OF THE CUT with Oscar-winning editor, Lee Smith, ACE on "Dark Phoenix" by Steve Hullfish - ProVideo Coalition
 
It's very frustrating to be in this position again. Not only does this film share a lot of the problems across the First Class era films and The Last Stand, it comes up with a whole new set of them. I will say something positive now since I foresee myself mostly expressing disappointment here: The first 20 minutes are good and can stand with the franchise's best moments. The score is very beautiful and the core cast is stellar (Turner is definitely capable).
 
I've felt disconnected from this franchise for a while even the good/great ones had me disinterested...like I can acknowledge they are good but I still felt empty when I watched them. I think I never got over how terrible the continuity was. It really really bothered me and it made me invest less and less in these characters over time. That being said it is really sad to see those of you who love this franchise get this as a farewell. You deserved better.
 
It's very frustrating to be in this position again. Not only does this film share a lot of the problems across the First Class era films and The Last Stand, it comes up with a whole new set of them. I will say something positive now since I foresee myself mostly expressing disappointment here: The first 20 minutes are good and can stand with the franchise's best moments. The score is very beautiful and the core cast is stellar (Turner is definitely capable).

I remember talking to someone who went to the January test screening and he also said that the first act was good but the rest of the film fell apart due to pacing issues. Said that it would be a decent movie if they fixed that... but they didn’t.
 
I remember talking to someone who went to the January test screening and he also said that the first act was good but the rest of the film fell apart due to pacing issues. Said that it would be a decent movie if they fixed that... but they didn’t.

The pacing problems get exponentially worse and worse. It's like the film sprinted from the gate and then couldn't get to the finish line. There are also some fundamentally bad concepts introduced in the second act.
 
Just saw it at an empty theater in Times Square.

Yeah. It’s a snooze fest. Like, if it was a FF/Batman Forever crapfest that would have been more enjoyable. I think that’s why some are saying it’s not “terrible”. Listen, it IS. It’s just not bad in an embarrassing way. It’s bad in a “absolutely boring” and “no plot whatsoever” way.
That's the worst kind of bad in my opinion.
At least the others you can have fun with ala MST3K.
 
I don’t think Batman Forever was that bad. It actually tried to explored Bruce’s psyche unlike the Burton films which were about the villains.

The pacing problems get exponentially worse and worse. It's like the film sprinted from the gate and then couldn't get to the finish line. There are also some fundamentally bad concepts introduced in the second act.

Its like the reverse problem with Apocalypse, which pacing was too slow. This was way too fast and didn’t give you anytime to contemplate anything.

I think those concept would have worked better with longer runtime.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,368
Messages
22,092,917
Members
45,887
Latest member
Barryg
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"