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

[Matt.S99]

I personally liked Apocalypse for what it was, but it definitely missed the mark.

Apocalypse should have been a bigger threat. It would have made more sense if he faced off against the original cast.

In the movie, it was supposed to be this big thing with Apocalypse bringing on so much destruction, but it just didn’t feel like that. It didn’t feel like the stakes were really that big.
You knew they’d all survive anyway, so nothing really landed.
They should have gone with a more...grounded villain, I guess you could say.

And coming off the heels of DOFP didn’t help. (A film I’d say is one of the best comic films ever)

 

[Charzhin0]

its a "prequel" movie with a young cast. So basically general audience is more interested in an adult X-Men cast, with all the familiar actors from the original trilogy. Its pretty simple, even if some fans try hard to dismiss the hype with the adult cast. But numbers are out there, cherie.

I remember when the first trailer came out and tons of comments where saying where is wolverine? Shows how big of a draw Jackman and original cast as a whole.

 

[psylockolussus]

It would have made more sense if he faced off against the original cast.

That would have eXciting.

The fascination to feature the younger version post-dofp is just so wrong. Apocalypse and Dark PhoeniX were destined to fail since they featured the less appealing cast, which automatically depleted the public's interest. Dofp clearlyshowed who the audience want to see. They just never learned.

First Class - underperformed
Apocalypse - underperformed
Dark PhoeniX - soon to underperform

Can't wait for the cast to be replaced soon!

 

[Charzhin0]

They should have gone with a more...grounded villain, I guess you could say.

And coming off the heels of DOFP didn’t help. (A film I’d say is one of the best comic films ever)

Apocalypse as a villain choice was fine, it had to be done sooner than later as he is an arch nemesis of the xmen. But should have been with the OT cast so we didnt alredy know the outcome. The conclusion of DOFP should have caused a deviance in the timeline which resulted in Apocalypse awakening.

 

[psylockolussus]

should have been with the OT cast so we didnt alredy know the outcome. The conclusion of DOFP should have caused a deviance in the timeline which resulted in Apocalypse awakening.

They clearly didn't think it clearly / wisely, just like hiring Kinberg to direct Dark PhoeniX.

Bad direction equals to bad movie.

 

[The Guard]

I thought DofP was the Fox franchise going big and getting ambitious and also being well received.

To a point. Yes, it had time travel and giant robots and such, but a lot of it happened in fairly normal locales. I recall X-fans complaining about how "small" it was, and how the sequel needed to be bigger, which is weird, because there's an action sequence toward the end where a bunch of giant troop ships deploy dozens of giant robots and a bunch of mutants fight giant robots in a stadium.

I'm not saying the X-Men films never went big. I'm saying one of the key arguments critics made is that APOCALYPSE went "too big". I think critics, for whatever reason, associate the X-Men with more intimate concerns like the sociopolitical issues that formed the bedrock of the franchise early on, not bombastic world ending comic book melodrama.

One look at Apocalypse himself and you know they either didn't go big or there were some very poor craftsmen in a crucial area. Even IW wouldn't work with Thanos looking like that. Many complain about Ultron dragging down AoU and Apocalypse was a similar drag on that film. Silly is silly regardless of how big something is (and I don't mind either film outside of my disappointment with the main villain in each case).

I'm not sure why Apocalypse's design has much an impact on how "big" they went with the scale of the film itself, but while its not perfect, I do think the complaints about Apocalypse and his design are considerably overblown, and seem to largely be tied to the original publicity backlash, because these tend to be the references people make when condemning it.

I'm not sure how to argue the point exactly, because for me it comes back to Apocalypse pretty much always looking kind of silly and overdesigned. I have a hard time believing he'd have been considered less ridiculous had be been rendered more faithfully as an angry robot muppet, and I thought the film design was a fairly decent compromise and had a number of key elements from the more classic comics designs.

 

[psylockolussus]

these predictions are basically true shots in the dark and are almost always going wrong
I remember the boxoffice predicting 124million opening for XMA .

Yeah imagine if the actual box office numbers for Dark PhoeniX are lower than box office projections.

 

[The Guard]

Go look at RT and see how many people nail the villain and the story before the action. The action is certainly brought up (because yes, it was terrible) but looking at that and deciding that going big just isn't right for the X-men franchise is either deliberately missing the point or just making excuses. Probably both.

Never said that people don't have other issues with the movie. Just that one of the major, oft-repeated and therefore key issues beyond the very, very basic "they should have made a better movie" complaint is that it got too big and silly.

Near as I can tell, no one said that going big isn't right for the X-Men franchise.

Said it before to the excuse brigade: this is you looking at a chef serving people overcooked steak and then arguing that people just don’t like red meat when they send it back. No ones buying it.

Not making an excuse for the film. I'm merely pointing out that there's likely a specific reason FOX went so "intimate and grounded" with not only the film, but with their narrative about DARK PHOENIX right from the start.

If you'd like, I can start a new round of complaints about Jennifer Lawrence instead. That's always a good time.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

The only draw of the “original cast” films was Hugh Jackman and the character of Wolverine. Take him out of any of the films - even the ones with Halle Berry and Patrick Stewart - and you’d have a significantly less successful film. Add him (in a significant role) to FC or Apocalypse and you’d probably have a significantly more successful film. So, I give Fox credit for not leaning on that for DPh. Granted, they knew Hugh was done, but they still would’ve guaranteed more sold tickets if they included a recast Logan in the film.

 

[Flint Marko]

Never said that people don't have other issues with the movie. Just that one of the major, oft-repeated and therefore key issues beyond the very, very basic "they should have made a better movie" complaint is that it got too big and silly.

Not making an excuse for the film. I'm merely pointing out that there's likely a specific reason FOX went so "intimate and grounded" with not only the film, but with their narrative about DARK PHOENIX right from the start.

Right, and we're saying that "specific reason" you're pointing out isn't a good one. You've cited critics railing the action in Apocalypse as a big reason why they went back to the smaller stakes for Dark Phoenix, as if that carries any weight with anyone outside of a Fox executive boardroom. You're justifying a bad decision with bad reasoning.

We all saw Apocalypse. We all know their attempt to "go big" isn't what sunk that movie, but now Dark Phoenix, a story that should be their most cosmic and crazy one yet, is going to suffer from them learning the wrong lessons. You seem cool with that.

Near as I can tell, no one said that going big isn't right for the X-Men franchise.

And yet you're trying to justify why they didn't go big for Dark Phoenix based on their previous inability to do so.

 

[psylockolussus]

The only draw of the “original cast” films was Hugh Jackman and the character of Wolverine. Take him out of any of the films - even the ones with Halle Berry and Patrick Stewart - and you’d have a significantly less successful film. Add him (in a significant role) to FC or Apocalypse and you’d probably have a significantly more successful film. So, I give Fox credit for not leaning on that for DPh. Granted, they knew Hugh was done, but they still would’ve guaranteed more sold tickets if they included a recast Logan in the film.

Hugh was in the Wolverine and didn't eXactly break records. And his films with the original cast performed better (see inflation numbers).

When people refer to the original cast, its the whole gang. Not just 1 to 3 people. So when people said they want the Ot cast to headline the Dofp sequel, that automatically includes Hugh, who from day 1 is part of the original cast.

 

[Frankeh]

While it is true Hugh is a big part of the draw, I don't think him with recast young X-Men would attain the same interest as him with the Original Cast. It felt a bit desperate when they included his claws in the third trailer.

You guys don't think the return of like, Cumming as Nightcrawler (instead of Kodi) wouldn't have sparked a lot of interest? He was a fan favorite.

Apocalypse's first squabble was with X-Factor, who were veteran X-Men. And since he's also known for "apocalyptic" futures, it makes sense to have him face off the Original Cast in the future post-DOFP. So essentially I do agree on that. I mean the happy ending from DOFP was undone with Logan afterwards anyway.

 

[EnDz0n3]

The Wolverine has the franchise's lowest opening weekend. It also has the lowest domestic total out of any film of the franchise. Both numbers are unadjusted for inflation, meaning The Wolverine attracted even less audience members than the numbers would have us believe. I don't know how anyone can look at that and say Hugh and/or Wolverine is "the only draw of the 'original cast' films."

If anything, it only proves that Hugh needs Halle, Marsden, Janssen, Stewart, McKellen, Paquin, Ashmore et al as much as they need him.

 

[The Guard]

Right, and we're saying that "specific reason" you're pointing out isn't a good one. You've cited critics railing the action in Apcalypse as a big reason why they went back to the smaller stakes for Dark Phoenix, as if that carries any weight with anyone outside of a Fox executive boardroom. You're justifying a bad decision with bad reasoning.

I didn't say the reason was a good one. I'm just making conversation.

I haven't justified anything.

And it's not my justification in the first place. I am clearly referring to FOX's narrative, not one that I myself came up with.

We all saw Apocalypse. We all know their attempt to "go big" isn't what sunk that movie, but now Dark Phoenix, a story that should be their most cosmic and crazy one yet, is going to suffer from them learning the wrong lessons. You seem cool with that.

Where exactly have I said I am cool with that?

He says while actively justifying why Fox didn't go big for Dark Phoenix.

Except that I'm not doing that, I'm referring to another entity's position. I haven't said going smaller was "justified" or needed or that it had to happen or that it was the right call, just that I believe that this particular elment of the critical response was a large part of the reason it has been part of FOX's narrative since the beginning.

 

[Flint Marko]

I didn't say the reason was a good one. I'm just making conversation.

I haven't justified anything.

And it's not my justification in the first place. I am clearly referring to FOX's narrative, not one that I myself came up with.



Where exactly have I said I am cool with that?



Except that I'm not doing that, I'm referring to another entity's position. I haven't said going smaller was "justified" or needed or that it had to happen or that it was the right call, just that I believe that this particular elment of the critical response was a large part of the reason it has been part of FOX's narrative since the beginning.

If you don't think their reasoning is good then you would have stated as much earlier when said reasoning was called into question by multiple people.

I don't think you understand how conversations work. You can't exhaustively explain the merit of an argument and then try to pretend you don't agree with it. That's called "back-pedaling".

Also just so we're clear, are you not cool with them going big and comic-booky for Dark Phoenix?

 

[The Original Bamfer]

The big reason I agree that Apocalypse would’ve benefited from taking place in the present/near future is because, after showing everyone all happy and safe in DoFP’s altered future, the stakes of the in-between-past were drastically lowered. Now, granted, Mystique, Quicksilver, Nightcrawler and Magneto were potentially on the chopping block, but most of the central characters weren’t. Dark Phoenix would’ve also probably would’ve been better suited in the future, too.

I do like the idea of meeting the core members of the OT team as teenagers in the new timeline, but I think their introductions would’ve worked better in a smaller scale story. And even if it had to be Apocalypse, they could’ve done a better job. It was a bit of a disappointment. I like the cast, though.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think you understand how conversations work. If you don't think their reasoning is good then you would have stated as much earlier when said reasoning was called into question by multiple people.

No I wouldn't, because I don't usually make value judgements about things on that kind of a binary level, especially before I see how something works out.

Aside from the fact that there is quite simply no one way to have a conversation, or set rules regarding how to have a conversation beyond basic civility (which telling someone they don't understand how conversations work handily violates)...

Having a conversation does not require me to make a value judgement about something.

You can't exhaustively explain the merit of an argument and then try to pretend you don't agree with it. That's called back-pedaling.

I think we both know that this is not even close to "exhaustive", especially where my arguments are concerned.

I didn't say whether I agreed with it or not. You assumed how I felt.

Back peddling is walking back a statement. My statement was that FOX has put out a narrative about the film, and I haven't walked that back at all. Many critics did single out or outright make fun of the big bombastic nature of APOCALYPSE in relation to the way the franchise is generally seen, and I won't be walking that back, either.

As such, you're essentially saying that I'm back peddling about a statement I never made.

Also just so we're clear, are you not cool with them going big and comic-booky for Dark Phoenix?

Not so much. I'm an X-Men fan and I like a lot of the comics weirdness. I'd prefer it to be a bit larger in scale. I think it can work conceptually and thematically with a different approach and I hope it does, but I'm probably going to miss the Shi'ar stuff, Hellfire Club, star eating, Colossus picking up a tree to hit thing with, etc to some extent. Not so much the crystal. This isn't the call I would have made, though I can kind of understand why they did.

 

[Phoenix_Flare]

Off topic but in episode seven of The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Harvey mentions Jean Grey/ Dark Phoenix to Sabrina. You think this might help the movie come June? Lol

 

[Flint Marko]

No I wouldn't, because I don't usually make value judgements about things on that kind of a binary level, especially before I see how something works out.

Aside from the fact that there is quite simply no one way to have a conversation, or set rules regarding how to have a conversation beyond basic civility (which telling someone they don't understand how conversations work handily violates)...

Having a conversation does not require me to make a value judgement about something.



I think we both know that this is not even close to "exhaustive", especially where my arguments are concerned.

I didn't say whether I agreed with it or not. You assumed how I felt.

Back peddling is walking back a statement. My statement was that FOX has put out a narrative about the film, and I haven't walked that back at all. Many critics did single out or outright make fun of the big bombastic nature of APOCALYPSE in relation to the way the franchise is generally seen, and I won't be walking that back, either.

As such, you're essentially saying that I'm back peddling about a statement I never made.



Not so much. I'm an X-Men fan and I like a lot of the comics weirdness. I'd prefer it to be a bit larger in scale. I think it can work conceptually and thematically with a different approach and I hope it does, but I'm probably going to miss the Shi'ar stuff, Hellfire Club, star eating, Colossus picking up a tree to hit thing with, etc to some extent. Not so much the crystal. This isn't the call I would have made, though I can kind of understand why they did.

And there it is, when we start splitting up posts and turning the intellectual dishonesty up to 11.

Imagine going into a flat earth thread, explaining in multiple posts why flat earthers believe what they believe, continually justifying said beliefs when people call your statements into question, and then try to pretend you aren't a flat farther.

If that's "making conversation" to you then have at it.

 

[Nadia]

Off topic but in episode seven of The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Harvey mentions Jean Grey/ Dark Phoenix to Sabrina. You think this might help the movie come June? Lol

I saw that too. They also referenced it in AHS (with Evan peters and produced by FX) I believe on the night of the first teaser dropping.

I don't think it will have an impact positively or negatively. I think general audiences (especially with increase the general interest in Comicbooks these days) have an idea of what Dark Phoenix is: " jean grey goes bad with all her power".

 

[The Guard]

And there it is, when we start splitting up posts and turning the intellectual dishonesty up to 11.

I mean, it doesn't get much more intellectually dishonest than telling someone else what THEY believe in the first place.

Imagine going into a flat earth thread, explaining in multiple posts why flat earthers believe what they believe, continually justifying said beliefs when people call your statements into question, and then try to pretend you aren't a flat farther.

If I was specifically addressing the Flat Earther's position, and not my own...I don't see how I'd be justifying their beliefs by explaining what their beliefs or position was. I'd be saying what they believe, or at least what their position is. That's not the same thing.

I don't have to justify someone else's justification. But I can certainly explain what I think their justification is.

You know that the concept of justifying something has an inherent value judgement component attached to it, right?

"to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable"

Where did I make any value judgement about FOX's narrative? I even called it a "narrative", which itself should be a context clue.

And if I had done so, why on Earth would it matter so much?

Why can't someone else have a differing opinion without you insisting on that opinion being wrong, intellectually dishonest, or without you engaging in some form of mockery?

If that's "making conversation" to you then have at it.

Hey, I'm trying, but you keep screaming "NO, THAT'S WRONG! YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO THINK THAT! NO ONE IS!" But of course with tact, nuance and subtlety.

We're getting off topic. How bout that Jennifer Lawrence? Isn't she awful as Mystique?

 

[Leo Zelinsky]

We're getting off topic. How bout that Jennifer Lawrence? Isn't she awful as Mystique?

You had time today I see

 

[Alison Blaire]

Hugh was in the Wolverine and didn't eXactly break records. And his films with the original cast performed better (see inflation numbers).

When people refer to the original cast, its the whole gang. Not just 1 to 3 people. So when people said they want the Ot cast to headline the Dofp sequel, that automatically includes Hugh, who from day 1 is part of the original cast.

Totally agree.The Whole cast !

 

[carpenter82]

I think this is a new tv spot

 

[EnDz0n3]

Sophie’s line delivery and awkward hand gestures are going to be really annoying watching that movie.