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

Logan made more money than Apocalypse which came several months after that film. Probably would have made much even more money if it wasn’t for Kong and Beauty & The Beast cutting into its Box Office. So it’s easy see why they thought this would work.

Didn’t @icekid already explained the other stuff?



Because Logan was the last X-Men movie before this, not Apocalypse. That movie performed pretty well.
Why would they bank on a two-part Dark Phoenix movie without Jackman because of the money Logan made? If anything that makes Fox look better for nixing that idea. But it's still not okay that they decided to adapt Dark Phoenix at all.
 
Why would they bank on a two-part Dark Phoenix movie without Jackman because of the money Logan made? If anything that makes Fox look better for nixing that idea. But it's still not okay that they decided to adapt Dark Phoenix at all.

They didn’t think people saw the movie simply because Hugh Jackman was the star but because it was a personal story, which Apocalypse wasn’t. The Wolverine didn’t make an impressive amount of money at the Box Office so they didn’t think it was because of Hugh Jackman.
 
They didn’t think people saw the movie simply because Hugh Jackman was the star but because it was a personal story, which Apocalypse wasn’t. The Wolverine didn’t make an impressive amount of money at the Box Office so they didn’t think it was because of Hugh Jackman.
I don't see it. Logan was the swan song for Jackman, it wouldn't have made the same money just starring anyone. Again it's looking like Fox was smart for nixing that two-parter idea.
 
I don't see it. Logan was the swan song for Jackman, it wouldn't have made the same money just starring anyone. Again it's looking like Fox was smart for nixing that two-parter idea.

Most people didn’t seem to be aware that it was his swan song. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be seeing so many comments like “where is Wolverine?” in the comment sections of the Dark Phoenix trailers on YouTube. The majority of movie goers normally don’t follow what goes on behind the scenes of a film. The movie looked awesome and it was awesome, that’s the reason why people saw it.

And nixing the two-parter in late pre-production was indeed a bad move in hindsight because Kinberg obviously didn’t know what to do with Jessica Chastin after that and she ended up being utterly wasted.
 
The movie looked awesome and it was awesome, that’s the reason why people saw it.
That's reductive and you know it.

Also, yes nixing the two-parter was a good idea because no one cared to see this movie, let alone a second part of it.
 
That's reductive and you know it.

Also, yes nixing the two-parter was a good idea because no one cared to see this movie, let alone a second part of it.

It’s not reductive it’s the truth.

I actually found your point to be reductive. You’re ignoring the fact that it’s been stated for months now that much of the Fox marketing team got fired which effected the film’s promotion, along with the fact that it came out in such a competitive where even movies that were sequels to well-received films were also underperforming. SLOP2 barely made more than this at its opening.
 
It’s not reductive it’s the truth.

I actually found your point to be reductive. You’re ignoring the fact that it’s been stated for months now that much of the Fox marketing team got fired which effected the film’s promotion, along with the fact that it came out in such a competitive where even movies that were sequels to well-received films were also underperforming. SLOP2 barely made more than this at its opening.
So every movie that did well at the box office is because "it looked awesome and was awesome"? That's very much reductive.

Also, that seems like an excuse. Competitive month didn't affect remakes like Aladdin which also had bad buzz before release...
 
So every movie that did well at the box office is because "it looked awesome and was awesome"? That's very much reductive.

Also, that seems like an excuse. Competitive month didn't affect remakes like Aladdin which also had bad buzz before release...

In general, yes.

Do you really believe that Aladdin wouldn’t have made even more money without all the competition? And Godzilla: King of The Monsters was also remake and it bombed.
 
In general, yes.

Do you really believe that Aladdin wouldn’t have made even more money without all the competition? And Godzilla: King of The Monsters was also remake and it bombed.

I would also like to add that the last live action remake of a 90s Disney(Beauty & The Beast) made over a billion dollars. So yes, Aladdin could have made much more money. lol
 
Icekids already explained it well. and his story was confirmed by other credible media.
there's no reason to argue about that when it's pretty much confirmed. lol
and shooting two movie(that connected each other) at same time is cheaper.

and y'all overestimate wolverine. like.. he's iron man. his two solo movies flopped for reason.
having him or original cast don't guarantee boxoffice success or quality.
 
Icekids already explained it well. and his story was confirmed by other credible media.
there's no reason to argue about that when it's pretty much confirmed. lol
and shooting two movie(that connected each other) at same time is cheaper.
Sure, two flops would have been better than one.

I mean, "movies do good because they're awesome" and yet this movie didn't do bad because it's bad, but because of X, Y reason...
 
Sure, two flops would have been better than one.

I mean, "movies do good because they're awesome" and yet this movie didn't do bad because it's bad, but because of X, Y reason...
nobody is arguing that this flopped because of that 1 movie decision.
 
nobody is arguing that this flopped because of that 1 movie decision.
But how is it a better decision to make two movies when this movie did flop?

I just think it's confusing people say with hindsight they should have done the two movies, when hindsight should say very much the opposite...
 
They didn’t think people saw the movie simply because Hugh Jackman was the star but because it was a personal story, which Apocalypse wasn’t. The Wolverine didn’t make an impressive amount of money at the Box Office so they didn’t think it was because of Hugh Jackman.
So wait, you mean to tell us, people watched Logan and it made all that money because it was a personal story? And because it was a personal story Fox went ahead and greenlit a two-parter film for Kinberg to direct?

A supposed two-parter film with the Shi’ar (which got turned to Skrulls) and Lilandra and her connection to Charles, which sounds like the complete opposite of Jean’s personal story.

Also you correctly point out that a lot of people saw Logan but you also say not a lot of people knew that was his swansong? Hugh Jackman dies and is literally buried in the closing seconds of the movie. If those same people who saw the movie didn’t know that was Hugh’s final turn in the role, they must not be very bright?

Either that or you’re simply not making any sense.
 
Last edited:
So wait, you mean to tell us, people watched Logan and it made all that money because it was a personal story? And because it was a personal story Fox went ahead and greenlit a two-parter film for Kinberg to direct?

A supposed two-parter film with the Shi’ar (which got turned to Skrulls) and Lilandra and her connection to Charles, which sounds like the complete opposite of Jean’s personal story.

Also you correctly point out that a lot of people saw Logan but you also say not a lot of people knew that was his swansong? Hugh Jackman dies and is literally buried in the closing seconds of the movie. If those same people who saw the movie didn’t know that was Hugh’s final turn in the role, they must not be very bright?

Either that or you’re simply not making any sense.

I just saying this is what Fox and company thought based on the interviews I have read.

I don’t know the exact details but you can do a lot in over four hours.

Logan is set in the 2020s and this movie is set in 1990s.
 
There’s no guarantee that a two-parter would have been better, or performed better, but it does sound like that was the original plan.

The writing, characterisations, X3 echoes and story concepts are definitely a problem with Dark Phoenix, but so is the pacing/editing and the release date. It’s not like Fox has a perfect track record for its treatment of the X-Men franchise.

I’d be fine with seeing the uncut version of the film on the Blu-ray.
 
There’s no guarantee that a two-parter would have been better, or performed better, but it does sound like that was the original plan.

The writing, characterisations, X3 echoes and story concepts are definitely a problem with Dark Phoenix, but so is the pacing/editing and the release date. It’s not like Fox has a perfect track record for its treatment of the X-Men franchise.

I’d be fine with seeing the uncut version of the film on the Blu-ray.

Deadline also reported that marketing was also a problem.

This leads us to the mishap of Fox marketing. With the Disney-Fox merger looming, we understand they’ve been a mess, distracted, with a revolving door of execs. We heard this around the time that Alita came out, that the filmmakers were dealing with different people in different marketing meetings.

I understand in meetings, some marketing execs didn’t even realize the release date changes on Dark Phoenix, and weren’t cognizant of the fact that the film was opening up against another franchise this weekend (i.e. Secret Life of Pets 2).

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

Which Variety also reported months ago.

The situation has had longtime employees on the Fox lot suffering a kind of prolonged trauma since the merger was announced, in December 2017. To hear them tell it, they are being issued mostly vague, Orwellian-lite guidance that outlines dress codes and explains key-card access, but they have been left wanting in terms of business directives. In the middle of February, Fox’s marketing and distribution departments gathered with the filmmakers of Dark Phoenix, the latest X-Men installment from producer-director Simon Kinberg, to lay out their plans for the film’s June release. It was a typical meeting. Ad buys were discussed, and the publicity tour for the film’s stars, including Sophie Turner, Jennifer Lawrence, and Jessica Chastain, was laid out. But it was still disconcerting, both because of all the new faces in the room—a handful of high-end consultants have been hired temporarily to fill the jobs recently vacated by long-term employees—and because of the ad hoc approach the Fox marketing team was taking toward the film’s release, four months away.

“We know when we are dropping a trailer, but we are nowhere near where we should be at this time,” said one marketing exec who was at the meeting. “It’s frightening. I would be mad if I were a filmmaker.”

“What’s not normal is the elephant in the room, which is that most people there are not going to be the people that are still in the job when the movie opens,” added another attendee.

“Nobody has come around and said, ‘This is what’s going on.’ Why can’t they just tell us that there is no place for us? Why can’t they let anyone know?” said the marketing exec. “We are not leaving because we didn’t make money for the company or we did a bad job. We are leaving because of pure capitalism.”

Inside Hollywood’s Disney-Fox Freakout

It really didn’t get a big marketing push until Disney officially owned Fox but it was at the last minute.
 
Last edited:
Btw, what is the story on the original idea for X3/X4?

Wow it was so long ago all I can remember is that Singer wanted to focus on Jean/Phoenix in part 3 taking matters into her own hands with Sigourney Weaver playing Emma Frost as a empath & former lover of Charles and X4 was going to the film of her transition to Dark Phoenix. His intentions was to shoot both films back to back after the hype and success of X2 but Tom Rothman screwed him over he left to do Superman and that’s how we ended up with TLS by Kinberg & Ratner
 
D9L18MyXkAAJ2kO.jpg:large
 
Icekids already explained it well. and his story was confirmed by other credible media.
there's no reason to argue about that when it's pretty much confirmed. lol
and shooting two movie(that connected each other) at same time is cheaper.
Wolverine’s movies didn’t ‘flop’ or else there wouldn’t even be a trilogy. Both Wolverine Origins and The Wolverine did fine with the budgets they had, and both of them outgrossed First Class and turned in a profit.
 
Wolverine’s movies didn’t ‘flop’ or else there wouldn’t even be a trilogy. Both Wolverine Origins and The Wolverine did fine with the budgets they had, and both of them outgrossed First Class and turned in a profit.

Origins only made 20 million than First Class. Not exactly a significant gap.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"