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

[The Original Bamfer]

Maybe but...

Spoiler

Days of Future Past shows that she will eventually revert back to being mortal. So who knows what exactly happened to her.

I, frankly, have given up on the piss-poor excuse for a continuity that these films have. I still love (some of) them, but it’s truly ridiculous.

Spoiler

Being a god, though, and having limitless power means she can probably take on any form... even that of Famke Janssen!

 

[EnDz0n3]

I'm not making excuses for it. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so hyperbolic and rude.

I'm just stating the obvious. This movie's production was compromised. There are realities of studio driven films. Some filmmakers have more control than others.

No, he's not a complete unknown to them, and them knowing him is probably why he got the job over more established filmmakers. But in part because he ISN'T an established director, he is someone they likely exerted enough control over to compress a two film vision into one film, etc, etc, etc.

But again, he was probably trusted to "direct" Fantastic Four because he's someone they could exert some control over. You don't hire hired guns to do their own thing most of the time.

Trank had plenty of people, including those in the industry, who recognized that his vision was compromised.

It's quite clear that THIS movie's original vision was also compromised, that the film was mandated to be shorter if nothing else, and that it was likely seriously altered after test screenings. I'm not disputing Kinberg's involvement, but that sort of thing tends to be a studio move, and it's a Fox move, and I think we all know that.

I get that you hate Kinberg on principal. I'm not defending his filmography, or the quality of the final product, but all signs point to the production of this film being compromised in some capacity. That's all I'm saying, and I'm hardly the only one doing so. Including a number of articles, who again, are essentIally just stating the obvious and not exactly breaking new ground in doing so.

So Fox okayed a two-picture deal for a director (Kinberg) that they they can control, knowing that in a few months, they're going to have to ummm...control him: telling him to squeeze his two scripts into one, telling him he is going to have to alter their heroine's power display and to rename his aliens, telling him he's going to have to snip his movie shorter because they know the screenings aren't going to be favourable?

That Fox is just so moustache-twirling evil. Amirite?

So you're telling us, Fox could've spared the rest of us the embarrassment IF ONLY in the summer of 2017 the studio hired a very talented director (sit down Simon!) for their sequel to Apocalypse, with a stronger ONE film, instead of two? If only there were people that saw this coming...if only there was a loud fan uproar telling Fox not to hire Kinberg. Oh wait, we all told them not to do it!

and that it was likely seriously altered after test screenings.

"Seriously altered after test screenings" is your defense why this this bad? That tells me the film was unsalvageable based on the screenings. No studio would alter a movie if the screenings told them the movie was good. LOL

 

[SumT]

the screenings score was 9.
Fox just wanted a 10, so they would finish the franchise with the biggest note.
sadly, "something" happened in the middle, and the final note was 23%

 

[EnDz0n3]

You're joking but wasn't that the narrative from some? When those Reddit spoilers leaked the rumblings right away were the screenings were good but Fox wanted better.

Just like The New Mutants was good, but Fox wanted it scarier.

 

[kevork89]

Internet backlash from the comic reading community doesn’t really effect a film’s performance. Less than a year ago we had Venom that was also getting trashed by fans, but it made over 800 million dollars. We are way too small in numbers as shown by comic sale figures being only in the thousands.

Deadline actually compared this to Venom and stated the reasons why this failed but that didn’t.

‘Dark Phoenix’ Bombs And Will Lose $100M+: Here’s Why – Deadline

100% agree with you shinlyle on that the movie needed some breathing time and be released at a later date.

Venom was the start of something and a character that was only really seen in Spider Man 3. Tom Hardy is likable and yeah the critics weren’t kind to Venom but it had great word of mouth. A lot of people just enjoyed it for what it was and Tom’s portrayal was enjoyed. It wasn’t getting nearly as much hate as DP and Dark Phoenix was a build up if problem after problem with Fox. Venom was also marketed as a B grade movie that you’re gonna go have fun watching. Dark Phoenix was not. It just seemed like it’s a dark psychological thriller again. It’s hard to want to see that when Marvel put out fun, well written, well acted movies that also have enough emotion but fun that there is a balance. Dark Phoenix did not have this and had nothing going into it that made anyone see it.

I wouldn’t even compare it to Venom tbh.

 

[Hand Banana]

I, frankly, have given up on the piss-poor excuse for a continuity that these films have. I still love (some of) them, but it’s truly ridiculous.

Spoiler

Being a god, though, and having limitless power means she can probably take on any form... even that of Famke Janssen!

Spoiler

If I had to guess. She became a being of pure psychic energy and later reformed herself like in the comic version.
[/quote]

 

[SumT]

yes, Fox just want excelence.
thats why a x-men movie is at the franchise lowest ever.
the world just doesnt understand Fox's excelence. We dont deserve such great quality! we arent worthy

 

[Hand Banana]

Venom was the start of something and a character that was only really seen in Spider Man 3. Tom Hardy is likable and yeah the critics weren’t kind to Venom but it had great word of mouth. A lot of people just enjoyed it for what it was and Tom’s portrayal was enjoyed. It wasn’t getting nearly as much hate as DP and Dark Phoenix was a build up if problem after problem with Fox. Venom was also marketed as a B grade movie that you’re gonna go have fun watching. Dark Phoenix was not. It just seemed like it’s a dark psychological thriller again. It’s hard to want to see that when Marvel put out fun, well written, well acted movies that also have enough emotion but fun that there is a balance. Dark Phoenix did not have this and had nothing going into it that made anyone see it.

I wouldn’t even compare it to Venom tbh.

My point with Venom is that what comic fans think is a none factor when it comes to Box Office openings. They are less than 1% of the movie going audience.

 

[TheVileOne]

the screenings score was 9.
Fox just wanted a 10, so they would finish the franchise with the biggest note.
sadly, "something" happened in the middle, and the final note was 23%

These test screenings and focus groups sound like political polls. They can extrapolate whatever kind of data they want.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The only time I really pay attention to test screenings is if something major, such as massive reshoots and delays, comes out of them. Because that almost always means it went poorly, no matter what the studio is actually saying. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[The Guard]

So Fox okayed a two-picture deal for a director (Kinberg) that they they can control, knowing that in a few months, they're going to have to ummm...control him: telling him to squeeze his two scripts into one, telling him he is going to have to alter their heroine's power display and to rename his aliens, telling him he's going to have to snip his movie shorter because they know the screenings aren't going to be favourable?

It's pretty clear that a LOT of people didn't know the Disney deal was imminent, and that this project was originally greenlit and others were in development based on the idea that the X-Men would be continuing on at FOX in some capacity. It's also apparent that changes were made after the content of certain Marvel movies became better known in studio circles.

I'm saying FOX, after a badly reviewed, less popular movie in APOCALYPSE, probably having minimal interest from established directors (who would want some measure of creative control) to helm the seventh (or 12th, depending on how you look at it) X-Men movie, hired a director to toe the company line and try to bring returns on a smaller investment, with more studio oversight, because the last movie was perceived to have gone off the rails.

That Fox is just so moustache-twirling evil. Amirite?

They're a major movie studio, concerned with the bottom line. I didn't say they were evil. I said there are realities of studio filmmaking.

So you're telling us, Fox could've spared the rest of us the embarrassment IF ONLY in the summer of 2017 the studio hired a very talented director (sit down Simon!) for their sequel to Apocalypse, with a stronger ONE film, instead of two? If only there were people that saw this coming...if only there was a loud fan uproar telling Fox not to hire Kinberg. Oh wait, we all told them not to do it!

No. I didn't say that at all. Not sure where you got that from. Seems like your own point of view phrased as a question for some reason.

"Seriously altered after test screenings" is your defense why this this bad?

No. I didn't say a word about the quality of the movie. I'm referring to FOX stepping in, period.

That tells me the film was unsalvageable based on the screenings. No studio would alter a movie if the screenings told them the movie was good. LOL

Wasn't commenting on the film's quality.

 

[icekid]

I don't think the movie is great and it sucks as a series closer, but with 10 extra minutes (of anything!) and either of the first 2 release dates, this film could have made a lot more in the US and spared itself this fate. I also think naming it Dark Phoenix and not X:Men Dark Phoenix in the US was a really boneheaded decision. Especially when the film has that title everywhere else in the world. Do we know who at Fox decided to do that? @icekid ? Marketing in general was a disaster. The film itself is probably the least offensive part of this debacle imo. It's not terrible like Fant4stic, but the third act certainly comes at you in a similar "wait that's the film?" kind of way. Other than the helicopter scene, I liked most of what I was presented, there just wasn't enough to it. Sigh

I haven’t followed up about that and have gotten vague answers, but the only thing that makes sense is that they knew it would be facing more abundant and better quality competition over their previous two dates, so I’m an effort to at least recuperate a little bit, trim the film to increase screening rotation in its release window since a large drop wasn’t almost guaranteed given the trend of these films week over week. Trimming it to increase rotation while diminished their own quality would have somehow leveraged their earnings, but that clearly backfired as both plans failed.

 

[EnDz0n3]

It's pretty clear that a LOT of people didn't know the Disney deal was imminent, and that this project was originally greenlit and others were in development based on the idea that the X-Men would be continuing on at FOX in some capacity. It's also apparent that changes were made after the content of certain Marvel movies became better known in studio circles.

I'm saying FOX, after a badly reviewed, less popular movie in APOCALYPSE, probably having minimal interest from established directors (who would want some measure of creative control) to helm the seventh (or 12th, depending on how you look at it) X-Men movie, hired a director to toe the company line and try to bring returns on a smaller investment, with more studio oversight, because the last movie was perceived to have gone off the rails.

Smaller investment? You just said Fox okayed a two-picture deal with Kinberg. It's like which came first: the chicken or the egg? They couldn't have okayed a smaller investment with Kinberg at the helm when they (you say) gave him the go-ahead to do two movies.

Methinks your conspiracy theories are half-baked.

They're a major movie studio, concerned with the bottom line. I didn't say they were evil. I said there are realities of studio filmmaking.

No. I didn't say that at all. Not sure where you got that from. Seems like your own point of view phrased as a question for some reason.

No. I didn't say a word about the quality of the movie. I'm referring to FOX stepping in, period.

Wasn't commenting on the film's quality.

You're enumerating...reasons why the movie isn't selling. So you might not have commented on the film's quality but it's obvious some things didn't work, as planned.

 

[Mad Ones]

In the version Icekid saw it was a much cooler line that was a callback to the original storyline.

Vuk :”You could have been a God”

Jean:“I’d rather die a mortal”

Don’t know why they didn’t go with this. Maybe because they cut out Jean and Vuk’s conversation about becoming a god that was in the second trailer.

Isn't it a little redundant to say you'd "rather die a mortal" since mortality already means dying? lol

That line from the comic, though, is essential when telling this story. It should be incorporated verbatim. Don't know why that concept was replaced with a shoehorned Captain Marvel arc about emotions. The movie never once made me question if Jean was strong because of her emotions, when in the comics Jean had already saved the universe because she loved her friends so much.

 

[Hand Banana]

Isn't it a little redundant to say you'd "rather die a mortal" since mortality already means dying? lol

That line from the comic, though, is essential when telling this story. It should be incorporated verbatim. Don't know why that concept was replaced with a shoehorned Captain Marvel arc about emotions. The movie never once made me question if Jean was strong because of her emotions, when in the comics Jean had already saved the universe because she loved her friends so much.

Yeah, I don’t even remember her emotions being discussed earlier. So it came out of no where.

 

[Nintendo]

@icekid I was referring to the title being just Dark Phoenix. Is that a Kinberg decision? Also where are they going in the scene where Magneto is in a wheel chair? In the original cut how do Magneto and Storm get taken out of the picture?

 

[icekid]

@icekid I was referring to the title being just Dark Phoenix. Is that a Kinberg decision? Also where are they going in the scene where Magneto is in a wheel chair? In the original cut how do Magneto and Storm get taken out of the picture?

It was a Kinberg decision because in the originally shot version of this singular film, the X-Men including Magneto were removed from the fight and captured in the NY battle, much like the final cut. Because of their minor inclusion and strong focus on Jean, Xavier and her relationship with Scott is why it was titled Dark Phoenix. They were props and it would have been honest marketing for once.

Only difference is, it would have diverged at that point because Jean, Scott and Xavier were not supposed to be captured and would have ended up elsewhere. Their release is what we’ve seen the photo of with Magneto in a wheelchair.

 

[JP]

Any chance we'll get *some* sort of MCU news at comic con?

 

[Zarex]

Possibly, but the D23 Expo in August seems like the most likely venue for an announcement of the MCU slate after FFH.

 

[Carlo Comicus]

Here my interview with Aaron Sims Creative about Dark Phoenix visual effects:

X-Men: Dark Phoenix - Interview with Aaron Sims Creative - The White Space

 

[henzINNIT]

Fox have frequently proven to be a terrible studio for super-hero properties. Pretty much every film in this series has suffered from pre-production problems, be it awful scheduling or last minute budget cuts. Kinberg almost certainly suffered in the same way previous film-makers have.

... But. I'm not really seeing the production drama you had for duds like Fan4stic. The 2-film plan was scrapped before the film was made. The film was shot, and then extensively re-shot. The added train sequence is probably the best action the film has. That isn't studio interference, that's an attempted rescue.

It was a Kinberg decision because in the originally shot version of this singular film, the X-Men including Magneto were removed from the fight and captured in the NY battle, much like the final cut. Because of their minor inclusion and strong focus on Jean, Xavier and her relationship with Scott is why it was titled Dark Phoenix. They were props and it would have been honest marketing for once.

Only difference is, it would have diverged at that point because Jean, Scott and Xavier were not supposed to be captured and would have ended up elsewhere. Their release is what we’ve seen the photo of with Magneto in a wheelchair.

Surely it was also an attempt to ape Logan and give the impression that the film is some kind of prestige piece and character study,

 

[Hand Banana]

Fox have frequently proven to be a terrible studio for super-hero properties. Pretty much every film in this series has suffered from pre-production problems, be it awful scheduling or last minute budget cuts. Kinberg almost certainly suffered in the same way previous film-makers have.

... But. I'm not really seeing the production drama you had for duds like Fan4stic. The 2-film plan was scrapped before the film was made. The film was shot, and then extensively re-shot. The added train sequence is probably the best action the film has. That isn't studio interference, that's an attempted rescue.

The third act change wasn’t even the studio’s call, that was Kinberg. What was studio interference was likely cutting out nearly half a hour of footage and shortening it to under two hours, which resulted in the rushed pacing and that’s the main problem with the movie.

Surely it was also an attempt to ape Logan and give the impression that the film is some kind of prestige piece and character study,

Judging from interviews that seems to be the case. However, the difference between Logan and Dark Phoenix is that audiences are aware that the former is the “real” name of Wolverine as he has been referred to as that many times throughout the series. Jean has only been referred to as “Phoenix” in single scene in the entire series before this film and that scene is from a 13 year old film...

Combine that with the marketing difficulties that several sites have been reporting since March(it had less awareness than Rocketman in May before Disney gave it a last minute push) you get this problem:


And that’s not even quarter of the comments that I found.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Weren't you the same person saying opening weekend for Dark Phoenix will be sizeable because comments from people on social media shows they just learned Sansa is playing that character and they'll go and watch the movie?

I'm sure if I searched social media right now I can find 15 people that agree with a given opinion and/or "fact" I want to sell. Doesn't mean anything.

 

[Hand Banana]

Weren't you the same person saying opening weekend for Dark Phoenix will be sizeable because comments from people on social media shows they just learned Sansa is playing that character and they'll go and watch the movie?

I'm sure if I searched social media right now I can find 15 people that agree with a given opinion and/or "fact" I want to sell. Doesn't mean anything.

I know which post you are referring to, but I didn’t mention Box Office.

Seem a lot of people who watch the X-films have never watched Apocalypse. Seen several people be surprised that Jean is being played by “Sansa”. Examples.

It was The Hollywood Reporter that said this movie had less awareness than Rocketman, not me. In hindsight these three tweets seem to suggest that.

 

[The Guard]

Smaller investment? You just said Fox okayed a two-picture deal with Kinberg. It's like which came first: the chicken or the egg? They couldn't have okayed a smaller investment with Kinberg at the helm when they (you say) gave him the go-ahead to do two movies.

I just said? Umm...when?

1. A smaller investment than previous movies. The reported budget is $200 million. I don't buy that for a second, deleted scenes and reshoots be damned.

2. They didn't give him the go ahead to do two movies, did they?

Methinks your conspiracy theories are half-baked.

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that there are common realities of big budget filmmaking that less established directors have less control over. DARK PHOENIX is hardly the first studio controlled/edited/managed film, and it won't be the last.

You're enumerating...reasons why the movie isn't selling. So you might not have commented on the film's quality but it's obvious some things didn't work, as planned.

Umm...when?

I have put none of my recent comments in anything resembling the context of "This is why the movie isn't selling". Like...none.

No one is arguing that some things didn't work as planned.

I'm not even discussing the movie's popularity or quality. I'm responding to a statement that FOX didn't somehow compromise this film, which, given their track record, is laughable.